this plan was prepared by the jamestown s'klallam tribe ... · water resources management plan...

This plan was prepared by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe for the Dungeness-Quilcene WaterResources Pilot Planning Project's Regional Planning Group. Funding for the DQ Project camethrough a special appropriation from the State of Washington, administered by the Department ofEcology Water Resource,, Program.

Under the Chelan Agreement, the task of the Regional Planning Group was to develop a regionalwater resources management plan for eastern Clallam and Jefferson Counties. For over twoyears, eight caucuses worked together planning for the water quality and quantity of the surfaceand ground waters of the region for the next twenty years.

Program Development and Administration

Ann Seiter, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Coordinating EntityLinda Newberry, DQ Project Coordinator

Cindy Young, Research StaffLinn Clark, Data Management/GIS Staff

Nancy Kovach, Project Assistant

Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe1033 Old Blyn Hwy.Sequim, WA 98382

(206) 683-1109

Plan design and production was done by the DQ staff.

Table of Contents

List of Figures, Tables, and Maps ......................................................................... viAbbreviations: Terms and Organizations . ............................................................ ixThe Regional Planning Group .............................................................................. :xSignature Paper ..................................................................................................... xi

Executive Summary . ........................................................................................... xiiiFilling the Gap .................................................................................................... xivScoping for the Project ....................................................................................... xivThe Essential Results ............................................................................................xv

Volume 1: The Plan

Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................1.1Background...........................................................................................................1.5Historical Perspective ..........................................................................................1.5

Chapter 2 Characterization of the DQ Regionand its Water Resources .................................................................2.1The Geologic and Climate History. .....................................................................2.3Watersheds of the Mountain Rivers and Streams ..............................................2.10Coastal Uplands, Lowlands, and Shorelines ......................................................2.51The Water Resources .........................................................................................2.78The Animal and Plant Communities ................................................................2.105Human Habitation ............................................................................................2.117

Chapter 3 Water Use ...........................................................................................3.1Chapter Overview ................................................................................................3.1Background on "Beneficial" Uses .......................................................................3.1Consumptive and Non-Consumptive Uses Defined ............................................3.3Water Use Overview: Current and Projected Water Use in the DungenessQuilcene Project Area ..........................................................................................3.5

Chapter 4 Information Resources and Habitat Projects .................................4.1Chapter Overview ................................................................................................4.1DQ Project Library Summary ..............................................................................4.2Listing of DQ Project Studies ..............................................................................4.7Inventory of Planned and Recent Habitat Studies and Projects .........................4.13Inventory of Stream Flow Data ..........................................................................4.26

Contents i

Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan

Chapter 5 Regional Strategies ! Recommendations .......................................5.1General BackgroundWetland & Riparian Habitats, Rivers & Small Streams ....................................5.11Flood Plain Management ...................................................................................5.13Forest Practices ..................................................................................................5.15Fish Management ...............................................................................................5.17Wildlife Management ........................................................................................5.18Recreation . .........................................................................................................5.21Hydrologic Research and Data Management ....................................................5.23

Chapter 6 East Clallam County ! DungenessWatershed Recommendations ........................................................6.1Problem Definition ...............................................................................................6.1Water Management Strategies . ..........................................................................6.13Irrigation Water Management ............................................................................6.14Research and Data Management ........................................................................6.20Habitat ................................................................................................................ 6.2IGround Water .....................................................................................................6.33East Clallam County Regional Water Management System .............................6.42Public Education and Conservation ...................................................................6.44Unresolved Issues ..............................................................................................6.45

Chapter 7 Eastern Jefferson County Recommendations .................................7.1Problem Definition ...............................................................................................7.1Water Resource Management ............................................................................7.14Habitat Recommendations .................................................................................7.15Rivers and Instream Flows .................................................................................7.18Fish Management ...............................................................................................7.22Ground Water .....................................................................................................7.24Conservation ......................................................................................................7.34

Chapter 8 Implementation Strategies ................................................................8.1Important Caveats to Consider .............................................................................8.1Transition Period Strategies .*..............................................................................8.2The Watershed Councils ......................................................................................8.2Summaries of Some of the Actions Proposed ......................................................8.3Regional Recommendations ................................................................................8.4Clallam County Recommendations ...................................................................8.13Jefferson County Recommendations ..................................................................8.25

ii Contents


Chapter 9 Technical Support ..............................................................................9.1Chapter Overview ................................................................................................9.1In-House Data Management . ...............................................................................9.1Strategies and Recommendations ........................................................................9.4

Chapter 10 Public Comment and Unfinished Agenda ...................................10.1Chapter Overview ..............................................................................................10.1Clallam Questionnaire Responses ......................................................................10.1Clallam Oral Comments ....................................................................................10.3Jefferson Questionnaire Responses ....................................................................10.5Jefferson Oral Comments ..................................................................................10.6Other Written Comments .................................................................................. 10.7Unfinished Agenda ..........................................................................................10.10

Volume 2: The ProcessChapter 11 Goals and Objectives .....................................................................11.1

Mission Statement ..............................................................................................11.1Scope of Project .................................................................................................11.1The Chelan Agreement Goals and Principles: ...................................................11.1Dungeness-Quilcene Regional Planning Group Goals and Objectives .............11.2

Chapter 12 Guidelines and Framework for the Project ................................12.1Chapter Overview ..............................................................................................12.1Tribal/State Environmental Protection MOU ....................................................12.2The Chelan Agreement ......................................................................................12.5RPG Groundrules .............................................................................................12.25

Chapter 13 RPG Committees ...........................................................................13.1Scoping Committee ............................................................................................13.1Advisory Committee ..........................................................................................13.1Budget Committee .............................................................................................13.1Education And Public Involvement ...................................................................13.1Technical Committee Activities ........................................................................13.9

Chapter 14 Description and Analysis of the Pilot Process .............................14.1Chapter Overview ..............................................................................................14.1Overview of the DQ Planning Process ..............................................................14.1Pilot Process Analysis Introduction ...................................................................14.7Coordinating Entity Perspective ........................................................................14.8Staff Perspective ..............................................................................................14.12Caucus Perspectives .........................................................................................14.27

Chapter 15 Linkages: Regulatory Programs andLocal Influences on Water Resources .........................................15.1General Background ..........................................................................................15.1Ways to Look at Water Law ..............................................................................15.2Linkages in the DQ Project ................................................................................15.3Linkages Under the Chelan Agreement .............................................................15.5Final Linkages ..................................................................................................15.18

Contents iii


AppendicesAppendix A References . .....................................................................................A.1

Appendix B DQ Budget .:....................................................................................B.1Budget Overview ................................................................................................B.1Summary of Immediate Implementation Needs ..................................................B.2

Appendix C DQ Education Plan ........................................................................C.1Introduction .........................................................................................................C.11. Educational Messages .....................................................................................C.22. Programs for general public ............................................................................C.33. Programs for irrigation water users and farmers .............................................C.64. Programs for Decision Makers .......................................................................C.85. Programs for Real Estate Agents, New Residents, and Visitors .....................C.96. Programs for School groups ..........................................................................C.107. Programs for Area Businesses ......................................................................C.13

Appendix D Habitat - Definition and Description ............................................D.1Salmon Habitat - Freshwater ..............................................................................D.1Salmon Habitat - Marine Waters ........................................................................D.2Riparian Areas ....................................................................................................D.2Riparian Area Contribution to Salmon Habitat ..................................................D.2Streamflow ..........................................................................................................D.5Wetlands .............................................................................................................D.6Shallow Water Habitat in Large Streams and Marine Waters ............................D.6Shading ...............................................................................................................D.7

Appendix E Environmental Caucus CommentsWetlands and Wildlife . ..................................................................E.1Wetlands . ............................................................................................................ E.1Wildlife: Present and Future -- an Overview ...................................................... E.6

Appendix F Stream Modifications .......................................................................................... F.1Gravel Traps ........................................................................................................ F.1Bioengineering..................................................................................................... F.4Revetments (Riprap) . .......................................................................................... F.7

Appendix G Sequim Water Plan - Conservation Section ...............................G.1Infrastructure .......................................................................................................G.1Domestic Water Use ...........................................................................................G.1Commercial Uses ................................................................................................G.3System Modifications .........................................................................................G.4Conservation Goals .............................................................................................G.5Public Participation .............................................................................................G.5

Appendix H Resolutions and Letters of Support . ...........................................H.1

Appendix I Glossary ............................................................................................ I.1

Iv Contents


List of Figures, Tables, and Maps

Figures

Figure 1.1 Decision Making Structure for Regional Planning Under the Chelan Agreement ............. 1.11Figure 1.2 Decision Making Structure for the DQ Regional Planning Group .................................... 1.11Figure 2.1 Basaltic horseshoe of Olympic Mts. peripheral rocks and inner core rocks . ....................... 2.4Figure 2.2 Pattern of rivers radiating out from core of the Olympic Peninsula ..................................... 2.4Figure 2.3 Maximum advance of Vashon Puget Lobe of the Fraser cordilleran glaciation .................. 2.6Figure 2.4 Cross-section of the bluff at Port Williams, near Sequim .................................................... 2.6Figure 2.5 Dungeness/Grey Wolf Rivers and East Clallam Streams .................................................. 2.11Figure 2.6 Dungeness headwaters and Royal Creek basins ................................................................ 2.14Figure 2.7 Dungeness River at Silver and Copper creeks confluence ................................................. 2.14Figure 2.8 Dungeness watershed, looking north from the headwaters basin ...................................... 2.15Figure 2.9 Middle Dungeness watershed, Copper, Silver, Sleepy Hollow, Gold creeks . ................... 2.15Figure 2.10 Gold Creek sub-basin ......................................................................................................... 2.16Figure 2.11 Land slide on Gold Creek .................................................................................................. 2.16Figure 2.12 Dungeness river canyon near Gold Creek, with Forest road bridge crossing .................... 2.16Figure 2.13 Gray Wolf River headwaters basin .................................................................................... 2.19Figure 2.14 Confluence of the Gray Wolf and Dungeness rivers at, Dungeness Forks ........................ 2.21Figure 2.15 Dungeness river channel through the foothills ................................................................... 2.21Figure 2.16 Dungeness State Fish Hatchery .............................................. ............................................2.23Figure 2.17 Sequim-Dungeness area ..................................................................................................... 2.23Figure 2.18 Relief map of the lower Sequim-Dungeness peninsula ..................................................... 2.25Figure 2.19a-n Dungeness River ................................................................................................................ 2.25Figure 2.20 Big and Little Quilcene rivers, Salmon and Snow creeks . ................................................ 2.32Figure 2.21 Big Quilcene River and its Tunnel Creek and Townsend Creek tributaries ...................... 2.34Figure 2.22 Big Quilcene diversion dam at RM 9.3 .............................................................................. 2.36Figure 2.23 Deep gorge section of the Big Quilcene River ................................................................... 2.36Figure 2.24 Lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River and Quilcene Bay ............................................. 2.37Figure 2.25a-h Lower 4 miles of Big Quilcene River ................................................................................ 2.38Figure 2.26 Little Quilcene River and its tributaries ............................................................................. 2.43Figure 2.27 Lords Lake ......................................................................................................................... 2.43Figure 2.28 Lower Little Quilcene River near Quilcene Bay ................................................................ 2.43Figure 2.29 Salmon and Snow creek watersheds .................................................................................. 2.46Figure 2.30 Jimmycomelately Creek watershed ................................................................................... 2.46Figure 2.31 Small streams of coastal uplands and lowlands ................................................................. 2.50Figure 2.32 Coastal areas along the Strait of Juan de Fuca ................................................................... 2.54Figure 2.33 Sequim-Dungeness and Miller peninsulas, and Sequim and Discovery Bays ................... 2.54Figure 2.34 Discovery Bay and the Quimper Peninsula ....................................................................... 2.59Figure 2.35 Marrowstone and Indian Islands, the Quimper Peninsula and Discovery Bay .................. 2.59Figure 2.36 Portage Canal ..................................................................................................................... 2.60Figure 2.37 Indian and Marrowstone islands ........................................................................................ 2.60Figure 2.38 Relief map of eastern Jefferson County ............................................................................. 2.62Figure 2.39 Chimacum Creek estuary ................................................................................................... 2.64Figure 2.40 Chimacum Creek .............................................................................................................. :2.64Figure 2.41 Chimacum Creek at Irondale Road .................................................................................... 2.65Figure 2.42 Confluence of East and West forks of Chimacum Creek ................................................... 2.65Figure 2.43 East Fork of Chimacum Creek flowing north in Beaver Valley ........................................ 2.66Figure 2.44 West Fork of Chimacum Creek ......................................................................................... 2.66Figure 2.45 Upper Chimacum Creek gaging site at West Valley Road, north of Center . ..................... 2.68Figure 2.46 Headwaters of Chimacum Creek in the uplands SE of Discovery Bay ............................. 2.68Figure 2.47 East Jefferson County coastline between Oak Bay and Thorndyke Bay ......................... ..2.70Figure 2.48 Ludlow Creek in Beaver Valley ......................................................................................... 2.70

Contents v


Figure 2.49 Toandos and Bolton Peninsula, Dabob and Quilcene Bay, and Mt. Walker.........................2.73Figure 2.50 Toandos Peninsula across Dabob Bay and the end of the Bolton Peninsula ........................2.73Figure 2.51 The spit separating Dabob Bay from Tarboo Bay ................................................................2.76Figure 2.52 Quilcene Bay and the Quilcene river estuaries ....................................................................2.76Figure 2.53 Annual water-year precipitation for selected sites in and near the DQ region .....................2.81Figure 2.54 Map of annual precipitation (in inches) for the Olympic Peninsula ....................................2.81Figure 2.55 Estimated annual water resource from precipitation ............................................................2.83Figure 2.56 Average precipitation by month for several locations in the coastal lowlands ....................2.84Figure 2.57 Maximum snow depth measured at the Deer Park snow course ..........................................2.84Figure 2.58 Historical precipitation since 1878, with approximate trend lines .......................................2.84Figure 2.59 Mean water-year flow for the Dungeness River at RM 11.8 gage....................................... .2.86Figure 2.60 Mean flow by month for the Dungeness River ....................................................................2.86Figure 2.61 Mean flows, showing patterns of storms and spring-summer runoff ...................................2.86Figure 2.62 Dungeness River daily mean flows ......................................................................................2.89Figure 2.63 Dungeness River daily mean flows for recent water years ..................................................2.91Figure 2.64 Variation in Dungeness River yearly mean flows and in high-flow events .........................2.92Figure 2.65a Dungeness River mean flows for October through March ...................................................2.93Figure 2.65b Dungeness River mean flows for April through September ................................................2.94Figure 2.66 N/S cross-section of Sequim-Dungeness area ground-water system ...................................2.98Figure 2.67 W/E cross-section of Sequim-Dungeness area ground-water systems .................................2.98Figure 2.68a Federal and State lands and population sub-areas of DQ region .......................................2.121Figure 2.68b 1992 estimated populations and population density for DQ region sub-areas ...................2.121Figure 2.69 Age distributions in DQ region, Clallam County and Washington State ...........................2.123Figure 2.70 Current recreational activities utilizing watersheds and water resources ...........................2.125Figure 2.71 Count of identified water wells in eastern Clallam County ...............................................2.130Figure 2.72 New water well completions in the Sequim-Dungeness area, by year ...............................2.130Figure 5.1 The GAP ................................................................................................................................5.3Figure 5.2 Estuarine wetlands on Indian Island at Oak Bay ..................................................................5.19Figure 6.1 Increase in Chinook Spawning Area For Given Instream Flow ............................................6.5Figure 6.2 Dungeness River Mean Monthly Flows and Recommended Instream Flows ........................6.7Figure 6.3 Dungeness River Irrigation Water Rights vs. Actual Use Since 1986 ...................................6.9Figure 6.4 Water Users Association's Strategies for Conservation and Efficiency of Use ...................6.15Figure 6.3 Land Use Maps of Eastern Clallam County .........................................................................6.41Figure 6.5 Instream Flow Needs For Fishery Resources in Clallam County ........................................6.48Figure 7.1 Instream Flow Needs For Fishery Resources in Jefferson County ......................................7.36Figure 7.2 USFWS Letter on Penny Creek Flows ................................................................................7.40Figure 7.3 Salmon and Trout Life History Periods in Quilcene River ..................................................7.42Figure 7.4 Salmon and Steelhead Run Timing and Fishing Season in Quilcene Bay . ..........................7.44Figure 8.1 Suggested Strategy for Implementation -- Jefferson County ...............................................8.32Figure 14.1 Early Depiction of RPG Process ..........................................................................................14.7Figure E.1 Classification Hierarchy of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ............................................ E.3Figure 1. 1 Aquifer Schematic ................................................................................................................. I.1Figure 1.2 Floodway/Flood plain Schematic ........................................................................................... I.4Figure 1.3 Hydraulic Continuity Schematic ............................................................................................ I.5Figure 1.4 The Hydrologic Cycle ............................................................................................................ I.6Figure 1.5 Schematic of Infiltration Gallery ........................................................................................... I.6

Figure 1.6 Hydraulic Conditions Before and After Seawater Intrusion .................................................. I.9Figure 1.7 Typical River Cross Section ................................................................................................ I.10

vi Contents


Tables

Table 3.1 Water Use Summary By County .................................................... ...........................................3.6Table 3.2 Summary of Residential Water System and Well Users ...........................................................3.6Table 3.3 DQ Project Area Population Distribution and Density . ............................................................3.9Table 3.4 Examples of Current Residential Water Use in DQ Area ........................................................3.11Table 3.5 Examples of Commercial Use in the DQ Project Area .,..........................................................3.11

Table 3.6 Examples of Combined Commercial and Residential Use ......................................................3.11Table 3.7 Estimated Current Residential and Commercial Water Use ....................................................3.13Table 3.8 Water System Users Group „A„ and „B„ Systems ..................................................................3.16Table 3.9 Residential Water Summary Systems and Single Wells ..........................................................3.17Table 3.10 Estimated Total Wells and Well Density in the DQ Project Area ...........................................3.19Table 3.11 Alternative Figures for Sequim-Dungeness Irrigation Water Use ...........................................3.20Table 3.12 Industry, Agriculture, and Other Water Users .........................................................................3.21Table 3.13 Water Supply Source ...............................................................................................................3.23Table 3.14 DQ Project Area Population Projection ...................................................................................3.26Table 3.15 Projected Residential and Commercial Water Use ..................................................................3.27Table 3.16 Summary of Ground- and Surface-Water Use in Clallam and Jefferson .................................3.28Table 3.17 Conversion Chart .....................................................................................................................3.29Table 5.1 The Status of Salmon Stocks on Northeastern Olympic Peninsula .........................................5.16Table 6.1 Status of Salmon Stocks in Eastern Clallam County .................................................................6.2Table 6.2 Salmon Utilization in Eastern Clallam County .........................................................................6.2Table 7.1 Status of Salmon Stocks in Eastern Jefferson County ...............................................................7.3Table 7.2 Salmon Utilization in Eastern Jefferson County ........................................................................7.3

Table 7.3 Permitted Quilcene NFH Diversions and Required Instream Flows ......................................7.22

Maps

Map 1.1 DQ Pilot Planning Area Approximate Boundaries ....................................................................1.2Map 3.1 DQ Project Population Sub Areas .............................................................................................3.8Map 6.1 Wetlands and Irrigation Ditches in Clallam County ................................................................6.28

Map 6.2 Count of All Identified Water Wells in Eastern Clallam County ...........................................6.32Map 7.1 Count of All Identified Water Wells in Eastern Jefferson County ..........................................7.31

Contents vii


Abbreviations: Terms

BMP's Best Management PracticesCCWF Department of Ecology's Centennial Clean Water Fundcfs Cubic feet per secondCRMP Coordinated Resource Management and PlanningCWA Federal Clean Water ActCWSP Coordinated Water Supply PlanCZMA Coastal Zone Management ActCZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment of 1990DEIS Draft Environmental Impact StatementDEM Digital Elevation ModelDNS Determination of Non-Significance (a possible result of S.E.P.A.)EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a possible requirement under S.E.P.A.)ESA Federal Endangered Species ActFEMAT Federal Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment TeamFTE Full-time equivalentFY Fiscal YearGIS Geographic Information SystemGMA Washington State Growth Management ActGPS Global Positioning SystemHPA Hydraulic Project ApprovalIFIM Instream Flow Incremental MethodologyLOD / LWD Large organic debris / Large woody debrisNAWQA U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality AssessmentNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systemmgd Million gallons per dayMOA Memorandum of AgreementMOU Memorandum of Understandingppm Parts per millionPIE Dept. of Ecology's Public Involvement and Education FundRCW Revised Code of WashingtonRef. 38 Referendum 38 (Agricultural Water Supply Facilities)RM River mile, measured from mouth of riverSASSI Washington Salmon and Steelhead Stock InventorySDWA Safe Drinking Water ActSEPA State Environmental Policy ActSHB State House BillSMA Shoreline Management ActSWIS Strategic Wetland Information SystemTFW Timber / Fish / Wildlife AgreementTMDL Total maximum daily loadsTWR Washington Dept. of Ecology's Trust Water Rights programWAC Washington Administrative CodeWFP Washington Forest PracticesWRIS Dept. of Ecology's Water Rights Information SystemWRIA. Water Resource Inventory AreaWQA Water Quality ActWUA Weighted usable area

Viii Contents


Abbreviations: OrganizationsBLM United States Bureau of Land ManagementCCDCD Clallam County Department of Community DevelopmentCCCD Clallam County Conservation DistrictCD Conservation DistrictDNR Washington Department of Natural ResourcesDOE Washington Department of EcologyDOH Washington Department of HealthDOT Washington Department of TransportationDTCD Washington Department of Trade and Community Development

(formerly Dept. of Trade and Econ. Dvpmt. and Dept. of Community Dvpmt.)DRAWMC Dungeness River Area Watershed Management CommitteeEcology Washington Department of EcologyEES Economic and Engineering ServicesEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyES United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services OfficeFDA United States Food and Drug AdministrationFEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment TeamFERC Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionFPB Forest Practices BoardHCCC Hood Canal Coordinating CouncilHCSMP Hood Canal Salmon Management PlanJCCD Jefferson County Conservation DistrictXT (JST) Jamestown S'Klallam TribeNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOSC North Olympic Salmon CoalitionNMFS National Marine Fisheries ServiceNFH National Fish HatcheryONP Olympic National ParkOPT Olympic Peninsula TrustOPF Olympic Peninsula FoundationPGKT (PGST) Port Gamble S'Klallam TribePUD Public Utility DistrictPNPTC Point No Point Treaty CouncilPSCRBT Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin TeamPSWQA Puget Sound Water Quality AuthorityQRD United States Forest Service Quilcene Ranger DistrictRBT Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin TeamRPG Regional Planning GroupSCC State Conservation CommissionSCS United States Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation' ,ServiceUSFS United States Forest ServiceUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSGS United States Geological SurveyUSSCS United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation ServiceWDFW Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

(formerly Dept. of Fisheries and Dept. of Wildlife)WOS Wild Olympic SalmonWRF Water Resources ForumWSCC Washington State Conservation CommissionWSU Washington State UniversityWUCC Water Utility Coordinating CommitteeWW Washington State University Cooperative Extension Water Watchers

Contents ix


The Regional Planning GroupThe following is a list of delegates and alternate representatives of the DQ Caucuses. Clallam Countyrepresentatives are on the left and Jefferson County on the right.

Agriculture Tribal GovernmentRoger Schmidt Roger Short Ron Alien Steve ModdemeyerJohn Mansfield Ann SeiterMilton Griffing Mike Reed

Business State GovernmentKirk Gries Bart Phillips Dave McCraney Steve KellerMarguerite Glover Stan Cupp Tim Rymer

Fisheries Local GovernmentDick Goin Bruce Marston Dave Cameron Julie McCullochWalt Blendermann Barbara Donovan Dave Johnston Richard Wojt

Dana Roberts

EnvironmentalM. Pat Wennekens Paula Mackrow Dept. of EcologyBetty Joyce Enbysk Steve Hayden Doug Rushton

Recreation Technical CommitteeVirginia Clark Carol Volk Welden Clark

Don LeePalmer Osborn Ground Water Concerns

Eloise Kailin Rita Kepner (1992)

(see hard copy for picture)

Regional Planning Group May 24, 1994

x Contents

DUNGENESS - QUILCENE WATER RESOURCESPILOT PLANNING PROJECT

SIGNATURE PAPER

June 30, 1994

This Plan is forwarded to the Department of Ecology as recommendations and strategies developed toprovide protection and management for the quality and quantity of the region's surface and ground-water.Any changes or revisions to the Plan will require the written approval of the Dungeness-Quilcene RegionalPlanning Group. This Signature Page indicates support for the Plan and Planning effort by the main RPGdelegates involved. Recommendations in the Plan -which do not have full consensus are indicated within thechapters, and signing this does nothing to change the status of those recommendations.

Executive Summary

Volume 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 1Introduction

The rainfall reaching the Olympic Peninsula begins a journey from the top of theglacially-formed Olympics, carving deep canyons blanketed with forests, some ancient, othersrecently cut. From the original rainfall, water continues its route downstream to flow acrossremnant prairies, with a portion entering into irrigation ditches for rich farmlands, with someflowing through pipes for two cities and other small communities, and a portion rising throughevapatranspiraton to form clouds to begin the cycle again. Other water sinks into the porousglacial soils to reach aquifers as ground water. Still some of the original rainfall remainsfree-flowing in rivers and tributaries, until finally the water reaches the cliffs and estuaries andenters into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, mixing in movement to the east with the Puget Soundwaters, and flowing west to the coast, eventually to join with the sea.

The amount of water on bath the surface and under ground, the quality of that water, and its useor mis-use are the topics of this plan. With the intention to develop a water resource managementplan for the Dungeness-Quilcene Regional Planning area, a group of concerned individuals fromlocal tribes, governments and community interests spent nearly 3 years intensively working toprovide a better way for humans to interact with their landscape and water resources. This planembodies concerns, ideas, strategies, and recommendations for how to better manage and protectboth sufficient quantity and good quality of the water on the northeastern Olympic Peninsula.

The Plan is divided into two volumes. This first is really the plan and the second the process. Theplan describes the background leading to the work under the Chelan Agreement, the formationand structure of the working groups, and goals which were developed to accomplish the task athand. A natural resource characterization, and a water use overview of the region bring togetherinformation currently distributed

Introduction 1.1


Introduction 1.2


throughout numerous sources. Influences on regional water management are described, includingthe important linkages tying together rules, laws, planning efforts and the resources. The mainrecommendations upon which the Regional Planning Group (RPG) has reached consensus arecontained in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, followed by implementation strategies to assure that this plandoes not sit idly on a shelf, but rather that it is put into action by local governments and othergroups, as well as state and federal agencies.

Because this is a pilot planning project for the State Department of Ecology, it was important todescribe not only the water resources and to make recommendations for how to better use them,but also the process and players which formed the recommendations, thus Volume 2. TheDungeness-Quilcene (DQ) Committees provided much-needed information, analysis andplanning, especially in technical and educational areas; their accomplishments are described inChapter 13. A description and analysis of the planning process provides useful information,especially critical to the Department of Ecology and to the future regional planning efforts in theState, as well as to other groups pursuing watershed planning efforts. There were many lessonsto be learned, and it is hoped that these experiences will be useful to planning efforts based onbioregional, regional and watershed-specific considerations. Finally, a description of the "publicprocess" is coupled with Public Comments on the regional water resources plan.

The planning effort, funded by the Legislature through the Department of Ecology, is nowcomplete, but the work to protect water resources on the Peninsula has just started. What seemedlike a never-ending process of meetings, discussions, arguments and agreements has concluded,with the completion of this written document. Because of the work that was accomplished by theplanning group members, the water resources of the region will be used, and planned for morecarefully in the future. Changes have already started as a result of this effort, and will continue inthe future.

Introduction 1.3


The strategies and recommendations made in this plan need implementation. Because theyrepresent such a broad spectrum of interests, it is hoped that the implementation of recommendedactions will be shared, and will move forward in a timely manner. Beyond the actualrecommendations, the relationships which have been built and broadened throughout the processwill lend credibility and strength to implementation, and will provide the energy and momentumneeded to make serious changes in how we deal with our local water resources in east Clallamand east Jefferson counties.

Introduction 1.4


Background

Historical PerspectiveSince the Great Ice Age, Indians have fished the waters of the Olympic Peninsula, dependingupon the rivers and streams rich in salmon and other resources. For thousands of years before thefirst explorers reached the eastern Olympic Peninsula in the late 1700's and the settlers firstarrived in the mid- I 800's to cut the thick stands of timber and float logs down the rivers, Indianssurvived well on the rich abundance of fish and shellfish growing in these pristine waters, andtribes based much of their culture and economy on the multiple runs of salmon. Throughout theyears, Indian water claims have created many uncertainties for development in tribal "usual andaccustomed areas."

The Move to a Cooperative Process in Washington State Much has been written on thecomplexity of Indian claims to water, and in Washington State, the uncertainty of tribal claims towater is connected not only with tribal lands, but also with treaty-reserved rights to fisheriesresources, and the instream flows necessary to support fisheries' habitat. The 1974 "Boldt"decision held that the tribes who had signed treaties in 1855, in what is now Washington state,were entitled to the opportunity to harvest half of the harvestable salmon and steelhead returningto off-reservation fishing grounds (U.S. v Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 [1974]). A subsequentdecision held that the right to harvest fish implies a right to protection of fisheries' habitat,otherwise, "the right to take fish would eventually be reduced to the right to dip one's net into thewater and bring it out empty" (506 F. Supp. 187, 203 [1980]). Although later decisions left thisfinding unclear, it is generally recognized that tribes in Washington State have a right to theprotection of fish habitat. An independent fact finder hired by the Washington State Legislaturein 1988 to review state water policies indicated that the legal entitlement of Indian tribes for bothon- reservation use and regional fisheries will have a major impact on the direction of state waterpolicy.

In the 1980's, Washington State policy makers and tribal leaders began an era of cooperation, inthe recognition that protection of fisheries'

Introduction 1.5


habitat was a mutual goal. State and tribal government discussions over water policy wereeventually widened to include a range of water users and interested parties, and culminated in anagreement in November 1990 at a retreat at Lake Chelan.

The Chelan AgreementThe Chelan Agreement incorporated the goals of a number of caucuses including state, local andtribal governments, and agricultural, business, environmental, fisheries and recreation interests.The Agreement established a state-wide forum to review water management policies, and createda framework for the development of regional water management plans. The local planningprocess provided an opportunity for regional water users to attempt to resolve managementconflicts through negotiation and consensus and was not intended to formally resolve legaldisputes over water. Legislation passed the same year supported the cooperative planning effort,and provided funding for two pilot areas to test the process, one in the Methow basin in easternWashington, and the other on the northeast portion of the Olympic Peninsula in the Puget Soundregion. The northeast regional planning effort became known as the Dungeness-Quilcene (DQ)project named for the two major rivers and watersheds in the planning area.

Cultural and Historical Considerations on the DungenessThe Dungeness River was nominated by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe as a pilot planningproject due to the scope of water resource and fisheries problems on the river, and the culturaland historical significance of the river to tribal members. For the S’Klallam people, theDungeness River holds cultural and spiritual qualities and has always been the primary river ofthis band of people. Following the signing of the Treaty of Point No Point in 1855, white settlerspressured government agents to relocate the S’Klallam away from their traditional territory onthe northeast Olympic Peninsula to a reservation approximately 75 miles away. To remain closeto their river, the Dungeness band of S'Klallams pooled $500 in gold coin and purchased 200acres near the river mouth in 1874. They named their community "Jamestown" in honor of theirleader (Lord James Balch), and tribal descendants live there to this day.

Introduction 1.6


Intergovernmental CooperationOver the next century, settlement and development grew at the expense of fisheries and naturalresources. By the 1990's, faced with the situation of a serious decline in the runs of salmonids inthe river, and the numerous factors contributing to their decline, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribehad the choice of taking the issue to court, or attempting the new Chelan Agreement process tosee if the needs of the fish, agriculture, and a rapidly growing populace could be met bynegotiation. A significant element lead to the Tribe's decision to pursue negotiations, and later, tothe selection out of over 30 nominated watersheds, of the Dungeness as part of the Chelan pilotproject. That important element was the positive relationship between the Jamestown S’KlallamTribe and Clallam County which had been developed since the mid-1980's.

In 1986 Clallam County initiated a series of discussions on the Dungeness River and itsproblems, along with a Department of Ecology-funded comprehensive water quality planningeffort in the adjacent Sequim Bay watershed. These processes included riparian landowners,irrigators, business people, real estate agents, educators and several state and federal agencieswith jurisdiction over river management, along with the Tribe. These early discussions helpedlay the groundwork for a cooperative planning process that later covered a wider geographicarea, including the Quilcene rivers and watershed and much of east Jefferson County in theproject area. The discussions also convinced many of the parties, particularly the agriculturecommunity, that such approaches offer a constructive opportunity to resolve resourcemanagement conflicts.

As in similar processes, the negotiations commenced after all parties saw that it was in theirinterest to participate, and that they could no longer ignore the issues. Besides the degradingconditions of the watersheds, other issues that needed to be addressed immediately included thethreat of a lawsuit by the Tribe that could entirely reallocate the region's water supplies, and thefear that the State of Washington could remove matters from local control and develop analternative water management scheme.

Introduction 1.7


On the basis of similar concerns about the need for protection and better management of waterresources in east Jefferson County, and after lengthy discussions with interested parties from theCounty and the City of Port Townsend, the Department of Ecology designated the Dungeness-Quilcene for the Chelan Agreement's western pilot project. By expanding the project boundary toencompass the entire northeastern Olympic Peninsula in WRIA numbers 17 and 181 the breadthof water use issues increased to include irrigation, municipal and industrial use, and surface-ground water interaction. With the inclusion of both eastern Clallam and Jefferson counties andthe cities of Sequim and Port Townsend, the State was able to test the process in a multi-governmental setting.

The Chelan Agreement Goals and Principles2

The Chelan Agreement recognizes that water is a finite resource. The fundamental guidingconcepts of the Agreement include (in no particular order):

• That water resource management decisions be by hydrologic unit or regional planning area asdefined in the "boundary" section in this document (the Chelan Agreement).

• That future conflicts will be reduced if water use needs located in a hydrologic unit first bemet from water resources within that unit.

• The recognition that actions will be guided by the Tribes' objective to achieve an overall netgain of the productive capacity of fish and wildlife habitats and the State's related objectiveto accommodate growth in a manner that will protect the unique environment of the State asthose goals have been identified in the Memorandum of Understanding on EnvironmentalProtection.3 The participants understand the achievement of an overall net gain of theproductive capacity may, in addition to instream flows, include a variety of other means.

______________________________1WRIA - Water Resource Inventory Area2see Chapter 12 for the complete Chelan Agreement.3see Chapter 12 Memorandum of Understanding Between Federally Recognized Tribes of Washington State and theState of Washington.

Introduction 1.8


• That the water resource planning process described in this Agreement shall in no way affectexisting water rights without the consent of the water rights holder. Nor shall this planningprocess necessitate, require or limit any formal determination or resolution of any legaldispute about water rights under state or federal law or Indian treaty. This process is analternative process, voluntarily designed by the affected parties to build on the existingsystem of water rights through a cooperative, flexible process to plan and manage the uses ofWashington's water resources.

• To develop and implement a program providing for conservation, efficiency, elimination ofwaste, water reuse, and restoration of riparian habitat areas for water retention, including thedevelopment of legislation and/or regulations where appropriate.

• To assist the Department of Ecology in locating the resources for compliance, enforcementand administration of existing laws and regulations.

• That the participants remain fully committed to the planning process described in thisagreement.

On the basis of these guidelines, the Dungeness-Quilcene RPG, for the Scoping Document,established Goals and Objectives to guide the project (see Chapter 11).

The Caucus StructureThe Chelan Agreement sets out a clear decision-making structure for the participants in aregional water planning process. The eight caucuses mandated by the Agreement (State, Localand Tribal Government, Agriculture, Business, Environmental, Fisheries, and Recreation) mayadd additional caucuses at their discretion. However, a new caucus must demonstrate that it'sinterests cannot be addressed elsewhere, and neither pilot project accepted a petition from acaucus outside those specified. Though a ground water caucus was proposed, and representativessat at the RPG table during the "scoping process," the Local Government caucus accepted theresponsibility for ground

Introduction 1.9


water issues, and the original designation of caucuses was maintained.4 Federal and Stateagencies and local Public Utility Districts (PUDs), which may participate at the discretion of theregional planning group, were included on the Local Government caucus where they providedtechnical assistance. In recognition that governmental support is necessary to implement anywater management plan, the Chelan Agreement requires consensus from state, local and tribalgovernments on planning decisions. The support of a majority of the other caucuses is alsorequired. This structure caused the DQ non-governmental caucuses considerable discomfort inthe belief that they could be out- voted. To address this concern, the RPG agreed to proceed byfull consensus,5 with the option to revisit this decision if reasonable progress could not be made.

The final composition of the Dungeness-Quilcene Regional Planning Group, consisting of tworepresentatives from each caucus, met the need to incorporate local knowledge and participation,a generally recognized requisite for successful regional planning. Each caucus had two delegates,with alternates who were the primary decision-makers and were able to "vote" on consensusissues. In addition, each caucus had representatives from the local community and governmentswho met separately, and brought the concerns of the community to the table through the RPGdelegates. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe served as the Coordinating Entity, and wasresponsible for management and administration of the project. During the final year of planningthe RPG divided into Work Groups by County to focus on watershed-specific issues moreclosely.

_______________________4 After many weeks of discussion, on April 20, 1993 a final attempt at reaching consensus to include a new ground

water caucus was made. Consensus was not reached, and opposing views were put in writing, as required by theRPG process. It was agreed all the caucuses would take into consideration ground water issues, with specialemphasis for responsibility taken on by the Local Government caucus. The people representing the originalground water group were invited to continue to attend meetings, and were kept informed about the project bystaff.

5 In the Chelan Agreement, "consensus is defined as no negative votes, with abstentions allowed. If no consensus isreached, such will be noted and all the information generated during the process will be collected and madeavailable to all participants." In addition, the DQ group required that opposing viewpoints be given to the RPGin writing on consensus-decisions.

Introduction 1.10


Introduction 1.11

Volume 1

Chapter 2

Characterization of the DQ Region& Its Water Resources

Chapter 2Characterization of the DQ Region

And its Water Resources1

The Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Planning Project is focused on the waterresources of the northeast Olympic Peninsula -- a region of about 664 sq. miles in area. Theregion is bounded on the north and east by the sea-level waters of Juan de Fuca Strait, AdmiraltyInlet and Hood Canal; on the south and west by the mountain ridges, over 7,000 ft. high at somepoints, separating the Big Quilcene and Dungeness/Gray-Wolf watersheds from the Dosewallipsand Elwha watersheds. There are no substantial water inputs to the region other thanprecipitation and no substantial water exports from the region except surface and ground-waterdischarges to tidewaters, evapotranspiration, and consumptive uses.

Our characterization begins with an overview of the geologic and climatic history tohighlight the special character of the DQ region. Second, we describe the region as itexists today, first tracing each of the important mountain rivers and streams from theirheadwaters to their discharge into sea-level saltwaters, and then sketching the coastaluplands and lowlands and the shoreline features of the region.

The third major section of the chapter provides more detail on the important waterresources of the region. First is an overview of climate and weather patterns andtopographically-caused rainshadow areas. Next, surface water flows are considered,with major emphasis on the Dungeness River system for which long-term historical flowdata is available. Ground-water resources are described as possible, with attention to thegaps in our knowledge of the complexity of the hydrogeology of the region.

The fourth section of this characterization deals with the animal and plant life of theregion, with major concentration on the anadromous fish that utilize the surface watersof the region.

The last section focuses on ourselves ... the people who have settled this region, who havecreated impacts on the natural surroundings, and who have the capacity to materiallyaffect the future of the region.

_______________________1 This Chapter was prepared by Welden Clark, who is Co-Chair of the DQ Technical Committee and on the

Recreation Caucus, with input from various others. The section on fisheries was prepared by Brad Sete, FisheriesManager for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

Characterization of the DQ Region and Its Water Resources 2.1

Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Management Plan

Characterization of a region of this size and diversity must draw from many perspectivesin order to identify the relevance of the natural history, the characteristics of thepresent-day environment, and the presence and impacts of human habitation. For someaspects a chronological perspective is appropriate, for others a physiographicperspective -- west to east, or higher to lower elevation -- is most meaningful. In somecases a broad brushing of major features is most useful, in others the small details arecrucially important.

This characterization is largely derivative, an interpretation of research reports andexpository writings of professionals in the fields covered, and of technical notesprepared by DQ project participants. It is intended as a road-map of sorts, to provide aframework from which to understand the discussions and recommendations included inthis resource management plan. Sources are cited in footnotes for many points ofinformation. Others, especially topics that have been extensively discussed in theliterature, are not explicitly referenced. The reader can find much further relevantinformation in the references cited in the footnotes and listed in Appendix A. the mostgenerally useful map reference for the DQ Region is the USGS topographic map series.2

_______________________________2 USGS Topographic Maps. 7.5-minute series, the familiar "topo quads" 22 separate map sheets are needed tocover the DQ Region.

2.2 Characterization of the DQ Region and Its Water Resources


The Geologic and Climate HistoryGeologic beginnings -- the foundation

The Olympic Peninsula is very young in comparison with most of the North Americancontinent.

Oceanic Crust:The oldest rocks are generally of the order of 50 million years, and are oceanic crustalbasalts apparently formed at and transported away from an "oceanic ridge" toward the northamerican continental plate, and associated seamounts. In the usual tectonic progression thedense oceanic-crustal material would be ultimately subducted under the lightercontinental-crustal plate and reabsorbed into the underlying mantle, but this piece of platewas apparently broken off, surfaced, and "docked" against the pre-existing continentalmargin when subduction shifted west, beyond the western margin of this plate fragment.These dark volcanic basalt rocks, the Crescent formation of the "peripheral rocks" as shownin Figure 2.1, are almost everywhere evident in the DQ region, from the 7700+ ft. crest ofMt. Constance to the foothills behind Sequim and the shoreline at Mats Bay.3 While thisoceanic crust was still submerged thick sequences of marine sediments were deposited,forming the sedimentary rock strata that are now a prominent feature of the shoreline of theStrait of Juan de Fuca near the western tip of the Olympic Peninsula, and that crop out atvarious places in the DQ region, such as Bell Mil near Sequim, and in the Snow Creekuplands and the Oak Bay bluffs.4

Rise of the Olympic Mountains:The shift of subduction to a new line west of the peninsula and Vancouver Island beganfilling a new trench with sediments scraped off of the subducting oceanic crust from thewest and sediments carried out from the continent to the east. Eventually these trenchdeposits, lighter than the overlying crustal rock of the peninsula, broke up through and werepushed up and eastward to form the mountains. These mountain rocks, the "core rocks" asshown on Figure 2.1, are severely twisted, folded, and metamorphosed from the heat andpressure of the trench and the subsequent uplift. Their contact with the "peripheral rocks" ismarked by faults circling the north, east, and south portions of the mountains.5

Drainage and erosion from the uplifted mountains has cut deep river channels radically outfrom the high center, as illustrated in Figure 2.2. The Dungeness/Gray Wolf River systemdrains from the central "core rocks" of the mountains, cutting out through the "peripheralrocks" horseshoe to empty into marine waters, as do the Elwha River to the west, and the

_____________________3 One annotated geologic map (Tabor & Cady, 1978) provides definitive coverage of the DQ region except for

the extreme eastern portion. A geologic map and report (Grimstad & Carson, 1981) covers the eastern area. Anoverview is provided in Roadside Geology of Washington (Alt & Hyndman, 1984), and Tabor presents detaileddescriptions of the Olympic mountains terrain (Tabor, 1987).

4 Snavely, P.D., Jr. Makah Formation: A Deep-Marginal-Basin Sedimentary Sequence of Late Eocene andOligocene Age in the Northwestern Olympic Peninsula, Washington. 1980. Also see Tabor and Cady. 1978.

5 Tabor & Cady. 1978.



Dosewallips River to the south of the DQ. The Big and Little Quilcene Rivers and theirtributaries drain the eastern slopes of the "peripheral rocks" horseshoe.



Ice Ages and the consequence of glaciations

Alpine Glaciers and Ice Sheets from Canada:The past 2 million years, extending up to 10,000 years ago -- an "ice age" -- has been a period ofrepeated reshaping of the DQ region by glaciers. Alpine glaciers are thought to have extendeddown the major river courses beyond the mountain front at some time. The Olympic alpineglaciers and snow fields have shaped the rugged interior mountain peaks and the high rivercanyons, but the major reshaping of the foothills and lowlands has been accomplished byprobably four or more cordilleran ice sheets moving down from British Columbia. We knowmost about the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation, the last of these to impact the DQ region,between about 17,000 and 12,000 years ago. The Puget lobe pushed down the Puget lowland to afew miles beyond Olympia, as shown on Figure 2.3, while the Juan de Fuca lobe probablyreached the west end of the Strait. The Port Townsend and Sequim areas were under nearly 4,000feet of ice. The ice sheet moved over all the foothills, over Bon Jon Pass and Gold Creek, upGray Wolf River over half way to Three Forks, and up the Dungeness mainstem almost to RoyalCreek. A glacial lake that formed between the Vashon ice-sheet front and the mountain riversand higher alpine glaciers in the mid/upper Dungeness watershed is evidenced to have stood at3300 ft. elevation at one time. The Puget lobe of the Vashon ice sheet reached 3400 ft. elevationon Mt. Zion and Green Mountain, and over topped the Quilcene range. A glacial lake inTownsend Creek topped at about 2600 ft., and one in the Big Quilcene/Tunnel Creek topped at2750 ft. elevation, spilling into the Dosewallips River over Rocky Brook Pass (probably thelast-known export of water from the DQ region).

The glaciations, particularly the large cordilleran ice sheets from British Columbia, areresponsible for a major share of the unconsolidated sediments that make up the lowland portionsof the DQ region. These unconsolidated sediments (the surficial geology, above the marinesedimentary and oceanic-crust bedrock) are comprised of multiple layers, as is evident in thecoastal bluffs as shown in Figure 2.4.6 Some are the direct result of glacial action: outwash silts,sands and gravels from advancing and regressing glaciers; unsorted tills deposited under the iceor as moraines; rocks and sediments dropped by drifting icebergs; and silts and clays depositedin glacial lake bottoms. The rest are directly the result of river actions and overland storm flows,forming alluvial plains, fans and deltas. Some of the materials carried by the rivers (and byalpine glaciers) are eroded bits of the local mountains, as is usual for mountain streams. In theDQ region, however, much of the sediment carried out of the mountains onto the lowlands and tomarine waters is reworked glacial drift that was carried into the lower and mid- elevations of themountain terrain by the earlier cordilleran glaciations. Any granite-like rocks found in the regionare almost certainly "exotic" materials imported from British Columbia and the North Cascadesby the cordilleran glacial ice sheets.

______________________2 Easterbrook, D.J., Blunt, D.J., and Rutter, N.W. Chronology of Pleistocene Sediments in the Puget Lowland.1987.



Postglacial changes resulting in the terrain we know:The huge ice sheets of the cordilleran glaciations weighed heavily on the earth's crust, causingdepression of the surface by hundreds of feet. Concurrently, sea levels were lowered because ofthe volume of water trapped in ice-age glaciers. There is evidence that the termination of thelatest glacial episode affecting the DQ region, the Vashon, was rapid, with the ice sheet thinning,floating, and breaking up in the eastern Strait, as temperatures rose. The sea-level rise wasaccordingly rapid, and coastal lowlands freed from glacier ice were submerged under marinewaters. The rebound of the earth's crust was more gradual, returning to equilibrium level some5,000 years ago. At Port Townsend, the rise of the earth's surface has been estimated as nearly500 ft. since the Vashon ice disappeared.

The coastal bluffs have formed in the time since the last glaciation, by gradual erosion of thecoastline from a combination of wave action and wind erosion. Erosion of about one foot peryear is evidenced at present in strait-facing bluffs, suggesting total retreat of the coastline of theStrait of perhaps 2 miles in places.

Much is unclear about climate changes since the disappearance of the Vashon ice sheet, but acombination of evidence from the northwest and from other parts of the northern hemisphereshows that the ending of the ice age corresponded to a warming and drying period lasting from10,000 years ago until 4,000 to 6,000 years ago, called the climatic optimum, or the hypsithermalperiod. This warm period was apparently succeeded by several shorter cooling periods, and amarked warm period about 600 years ago known as the medieval optimum. Colder and wetterclimate since, lasting up into the late 1800's, is known as the "little ice age." It resulted inenlarged alpine glaciers and ice fields in the Olympics which dwindled again in the 0centurysince.' Forest and land cover has presumably changed markedly since the Vashon icedisappeared. The earliest post-glacial land surfaces of lodgement till, recessional outwash, andflood alluvial fans would not have supported much plant growth. The warmth of thehypsithermal period is thought to have resulted in growth of conifers such as pines anddeciduous trees, to be eventually replaced in cooler, wetter times by the forests of Douglas-fir,cedar, etc., that we consider "old-growth" at present.

At present we can only guess at river flows and channels in the first few thousand yearsfollowing the disappearance of the Vashon ice, and between early glacial episodes. Casualinspection suggests multiple ancestral channels for some rivers and streams. Flows fromcatastrophic breaching of glacial lakes and runoff over barren ground must have caused recurrentfloods. In the "little ice age" period larger river flows must have resulted from increasedprecipitation and greater snowpack.

Impacts of natural events on the water resources

Natural phenomena that impact our region can be broadly identified as either individual(catastrophic) events or gradual (multi-year) changes such as climate fluctuations. Some of theindividual events can be correlated to the longer-term changes, and others appear to be randomoccurrences. Examples of seemingly-unexpected individual events are earthquakes and

__________________________________--7 Henderson, J.A., et al. Forested Plant Associations of the Olympic National Forest 1989.



tsunamis, and major storms with associated flooding or wind damage. Major fires appearunexpectedly but are often associated with prolonged drought fluctuations in regionalweather patterns. Landslides and bluff failures can result from unexpected earthquakes ortsunamis, but are often the result of prolonged wetter periods of regional weather patterns.

Any of these phenomena, either single events or longer-term fluctuations from what appearsnormal may have disastrous effects on our water resources: drought conditions diminishground-water supplies, instream flows for fish and wildlife habitat, and available water forout-of-stream diversions; flooding alters stream channels and habitat and endangers humanlife and developments; landslides and erosion increase stream-borne sediments to thedetriment of fish and estuarine shellfish habitats; and major earthquakes and/or tsunamis cancause extensive loss of life and destruction of both natural habitat and human-builtenvironments.

Major fires:Forest fires of large extent are thought to recur at something like 200 to 300-year frequencyin the eastern Peninsula. There is evidence of wide-coverage fires around 1500 AD, theearly 1700's, and the 1890's. g

Major windstorms:Severe windstorms have occurred on the western Olympic Peninsula perhaps 10 times in thepast 200 years,9 with probably less effect on the eastern Peninsula region, but majorwindstorm blow-downs are far from unknown. The most devastating storms for the easternPeninsula are often associated with northeast outflow winds related to arctic air massesmoving down from Canada.

Flood conditions:High flows are recorded in the Dungeness River gage 63-year record and in earlier isolatedrecords, and precipitation levels are known to have been higher in the late 1800's,suggesting more or larger flood flows prior to this century. The largest recorded daily flowconditions occurred in 1949 and 1956.1° The geomorphology of the river basin suggestsmany bigger floods in the past, and probably more to come in the future.

Major earthquakes:Major deep (subduction-zone) earthquakes in the Olympic Peninsula/Puget Sound regionare infrequent happenings. Some recent evidence suggests 300 to 600 year frequencies.Major shallow crustal earthquakes are also a possibility; recent studies have identified astrong quake in the Seattle/Bainbridge Island area about 1000 years ago that likely wouldhave had consequences in the DQ region (perhaps precipitating one or more of the known,but undated natural landslide events).

_____________________________8 Henderson, et al. 1989.9 Henderson, et al. 1989.10 USGS data from gage at RM (River Mile) 11.8, station 12048000. River flow data are presented in the

Water Resources section of this chapter. Graphs of mean daily flows at the Dungeness River gage for60+ years of record are available in an unpublished DQ Technical Note: Dungeness River Daily Flows:Historical Data for 1923-1990 (1992) and an Indication of Bedload Transport, Linn Clark (DQ staff] andWelden Clark, March 1993.



Major climate changes:We don't understand enough about climate variations yet to be able to even identify, much lesspredict, trends or climate changes in progress. Most suggested cycles of climate behavior inperiods measured in years or decades are not conclusive enough to be good predictors. Even theEl Nino -- Southern Oscillation phenomenon that has had major bearing on our recent years'weather, is complex and variable to the point that it eludes quantification. However, evidence isaccumulating that our climate of the past hundred years or so is perhaps uncharacteristicallystable, and that seeming fluctuations around normal conditions could in fact become changes --warmer or colder, wetter or dryer. Our limited historical evidence does show that the late 1800'swere wetter (perhaps 20%); the early 1800's were probably colder, and the 1920's and 1940'sexperienced severe drought years in the Dungeness river flows.



Watersheds of the Mountain Rivers and Streams

The Watershed of the Dungeness/Gray Wolf River System

Various aspects of the Dungeness River system have been studied fairly extensivelyover the past several decades, including fisheries habitat,11 impacts from logging androad-building, irrigation diversions, flood control, gravel aggradation and channelinstability.12 The entire Dungeness river area was analyzed in a study document forthen on point pollution Watershed Management Plan that provides much useful data.13 An early field tour for the DQ RPG participants covered aspects of the watershed,the river itself, and the irrigation diversions.14

The Dungeness/Gray Wolf River system is the largest river in the DQ region. Figure 2.511illustrates the surface water network of the Dungeness River system, including its majortributary, the Gray Wolf River.

The average annual water flows in the various tributaries of the Dungeness Riversystem are described later in this chapter, in the Water Resources section.

_____________________________11 See Hiss bibliography in Appendix A. Also, Orsborn, J.F., and Ralph, S.C. An Aquatic Resource Assessment of

the Dungeness River Basin System. November 1992. An initial volume of a continuing study .12 The work of this team, active in the late 1980'1, is relevant to a study of aggradation in the lower Dungeness by

Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, 1987, and a flood control plan, Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., DungenessRiver Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan, 1989. This latter plan contains good documentation ofstudies of, and interventions in the river system.

13 Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team (PSCRBT). Dungeness Area Watershed (Characterization). June1991.

14 Enbysk, B.J., DQ field trip and accompanying briefing notes, fall, 1992.15 Figure 2.5 (and many other maps in the Plan) is a GIS-produced coverage of the DQ region prepared by Linn

Clark, DQ data management staff, using data from USGS, USFS, PSCRBT, Clallam County Planning, andJefferson County Planning sources.



Headwaters of the Dungeness River:The Dungeness River begins with snow field patches on the southeast face of Mt. Mystery atabout 6400 ft. elevation feeding Heather Creek, and flows into the Strait of Juan de Fuca atsea-level about 32 miles downstream and nearly due north of its beginning. Three headwatertributaries (Heather, Home and Milk creeks) combine to form the Dungeness mainstem at rivermile (RM) 28 in a steep box-canyon headwaters basin with a floor at 3400 ft. to 2800 ft.elevation, illustrated in Figure 2.6.16 The form of this basin suggests alpine glaciation. Glaciallake bed deposits are also reported in the basin floor.17 The west side of this upper basin andRoyal Basin above it represents "core rocks" of the Inner Olympics while the east side representsthe "peripheral rocks."18

The upper Dungeness mainstem:At about RM 25 the mainstem Dungeness turns from north to northeast and is joined by RoyalCreek. Royal Creek flows northeast out of Royal Basin and is fed by a glacier/snow field on thenortheast flank of Mt. Deception, and by drainage from the east flank of the Needles, Mt. Clarkand Mt. Walkinshaw, and the southeast flanks of Gray Wolf Ridge. Figure 2.6 shows that thefloor of Royal Basin (5200 to 4600 ft. elevation) is substantially higher than the upperDungeness basin.

Royal Basin and Royal Creek nearly down to the Dungeness River are included in OlympicNational Park, as is the south end of the upper Dungeness basin. The remainder of the upperDungeness basin down to just below RM 25 is included in the south unit of the BuckhornWilderness that was established in 1984. The east-west boundary that divides Jefferson andClallam counties lies just south of the wilderness boundary.

Mueller Creek drains the steep south flank of the Mt. Baldy/Tyler Peak extension of Gray WolfRidge, joining the Dungeness on the left bank just below RM 24. The terminal moraine markingthe limit of advance of the Vashon ice sheet (probably about 15,000 years before present) is inthe vicinity of RM 24, and is exposed in steep cut bank slopes and slumps above forest road2860 on the east side of the river, opposite Mueller Creek.19 The forest road has continuedupriver on the west side, crossed the river just above RM 24, and traversed northeast along theflank of the ridge separating Copper Creek and the Dungeness. The boundary of the south unit ofthe Buckhorn wilderness parallels the forest road, higher on the slope, and includes most of theCopper Creek subwatershed including the abandoned Tubal

16 The 3-D terrain depictions used throughout this chapter utilize data from USGS 7.5-minute DEM files (digitalelevation versions of the familiar "topo quads"). The individual files have been provided by USFS Quilcene,Ecology Water Resources, and Olympic National Park, and processed for these illustrations by W. Clark.Resolutions (the spacing of elevation data points) vary, depending on the size of the area depicted, fromapproximately 1 point every 100 feet for detail views to 1 point for (approximately) every 40-acrequarter-quarter-section for the DQ Region overview.

17 Long, W.A. Unpublished reports. USFS Olympic National Forest. 1970's. Long, a USFS geologist, studied theglacial history of the eastern Olympic mountains extensively, and his writings provide much valuable insightinto, especially, the Vashon cordilleran glaciation and the alpine glacial episodes.

18 Tabor. 1987.19 Long. 1975.



Cain mine, the Tubal Cain and Tull Canyon mining camp sites,20 and the upper portion of theSilver Creek subwatershed.

At about RM 23 the mainstem resumes its mostly-northward course, and is joined on the rightbank by the combined Silver and Copper creeks that drain high terrain on the northwest side ofthe Dungeness/Big Quilcene divide. Figure 2.7 illustrates the steep terrain at the confluence ofCopper and Silver creeks and the Dungeness. A major landslide here in 1972, in alpine glacialtill deposits saturated as a result of prior clear cutting above, and triggered by storm runoff;briefly dammed the river.21

A view of the Dungeness watershed looking north from over the upper basin is depicted inFigure 2.8.

The middle reaches of the Dungeness:Below RM 23 the watershed broadens to the east as indicated on Figure 2.9. Three-o'clock Ridgeon the southeast flank of Maynard Peak, circled by the forest road, is a well-known vantage pointinto the higher country upstream. Several small creeks enter the Dungeness mainstem from bothleft and right banks. Sleepy Hollow Creek drains a long, narrow subwatershed beginning at thedivide with the Little Quilcene River, and joins the Dungeness at RM 19.3.

Gold Creek:The most extensive subwatershed in this area is that of Gold Creek, shown in Figure 2.10, whichjoins the Dungeness at RM 18.7. Gold Creek and its tributaries total over 12 miles in length22

and drain northwest from Bon Jon Pass (at the divide with the Little Quilcene River system) andthe southwest flank of Mt. Zion. At the headwaters of Gold Creek just northwest of Bon JonPass, a major timber clear-cut has stripped the entire watershed without leaving any riparianbuffer. The Gold Creek area contains much glacial drift from the Fraser (and earlier?) cordilleranglaciations, including glacial lake sediments, outwash deposits and lodgement tills. Numerouslandslides, both old and new, naturally-occurring and associated with timber harvesting, havecontributed sediments to the Dungeness River. One is shown in Figure 2.11. Substantial slidesthat contributed sediments to the Dungeness occurred in 1969 and 1972.23 Attempts that havebeen made to control and/or repair the Gold Creek slides appear to have underestimated theextent of the deposits and the long-term history of the movements.

_____________________________20 Wood, RL. Olympic Mountains Trail Guide. 1984.21 Long. 1975.22 Clark, V. & W. Stream Profiles of tile Dungeness River System. July 1992 (in Dungeness River Area

Watershed Management Plan, May 1993). A table and profile graphs identify locations, lengths, and gradientsof stream segments, and relevant geographical features.

23 Golder Associates. Geotechnical Investigation of the Gold Creek Slide Complex. April 1993. Preparedfor USFS, Olympic National Forest.



Below Gold Creek to the confluence with the Gray Wolf River:From just below Gold Creek to the Forks (the confluence with the Gray Wolf), Forest Road 2860parallels the river near the east bank. Shortly below Gold Creek the road crosses over the innerriver canyon, as shown in Figure 2.12, and climbs out of the inner canyon to join Forest Road2870 and continue south above the west river bank at a higher elevation.

Eddy Creek, draining the southwest flank of Bear Mountain, flows into the Dungeness at RM17.0 from the east, and another unnamed small creek enters from the east somewhat below.

We interrupt the description of the Dungeness mainstem at this point to consider itslargest tributary, the Gray Wolf.

The Gray Wolf River (once known as the West Fork of the Dungeness): The Gray WolfRiver (GWR) begins with three headwater tributaries in high country of the Olympic Mountains"core rocks." It flows into the Dungeness (at Dungeness RM 15.8) in a relatively broadriver-valley section.

The Gray Wolf River begins in three distinct headwater basin areas in the SW and W edge of theDQ region, at divides separating the watershed from Dosewallips and Elwha watersheds in theeast-central Olympic mountains. The three headwater streams join in the Three Forks area, aboutRM 9.6 above the confluence with the Dungeness river mainstem. The entire upper Gray WolfRiver watershed lies within Olympic National Park (ONP) down to a mile+ below the ThreeForks. The three upper basins are shown in Figure 2.13.

The upper Gray Wolf River: The upper Gray Wolf basin is bounded on the southwest by a6500-7000+ ft. ridge that drains into the headwaters and to Cedar Lake (5280 ft.) and CedarCreek, which flows into the upper Gray Wolf. On the east the high mountain ridge of TheNeedles, Mt. Deception (7788 ft.), Mt. Clark (7528 ft.), and Mt. Walkinshaw (7378 ft.) drainwest into the upper Gray Wolf River and east into Royal Basin of the upper Dungeness.

Between RM 14.8 and RM 12 the upper Gray Wolf River flows northeast, turning north againabout 2 miles west of Gray Wolf Peak (7218 ft.) in a steep, symmetric canyon (easily seen fromBlue Mountain) that terminates at the Three Forks. The upper Gray Wolf River, down to theconfluence with Cameron Creek, extends 7+ miles and is fed by another 13 miles of smallertributaries.

Cameron Creek: Cameron Creek originates in the Cameron Basin north of Cameron Pass(6450 ft.) on the divide separating the Dungeness/Gray Wolf River system from the Elwhawatershed. Another branch of the Cameron Creek headwaters drains from the Cameron Glaciersalong the north face of the east-west Mt. Cameron ridge, and joins the western branch fromCameron Basin about 6 miles above Three Forks. The straight, northeast-trending, steep-walledcanyon of Cameron Creek is an extension of the canyon of the lower Gray Wolf River, and wasobviously shaped by probably several alpine glacier episodes. Cameron Creek extends nearly 9miles beyond its confluence with the upper Gray Wolf River at Three Forks, and is fed by 12miles of



smaller tributaries in addition to Grand Creek.

Grand Creek:The third of the headwater streams of the Gray Wolf River joins Cameron Creek just aboveits confluence with the upper Gray Wolf River, (accounting for the "Three Forks" name).Grand Creek begins on the north flank of Grand Pass, in a headwater basin containingGladys Lake (5399 ft.), Moose Lake (5056 ft.), and Grand Lake (4745 ft.). It drains the eastflank of Lillian Ridge (the divide separating the Dungeness-Gray Wolf River watershedfrom Lillian River of the Elwha watershed) and the west/northwest flank of the spur ridgeseparating Grand and Cameron creeks. Badger Valley Creek, draining the southwest flank ofElk Mtn. (the east extension of Hurricane Ridge) and the northeast face of Lillian Ridge,joins Grand Creek, which arcs around northeast, then east, then southeast, draining the southflanks of Elk Mtn., Maiden Peak, Green Mtn., and Blue Mtn. before joining Cameron Creek.Grand Creek extends 7+ miles above Cameron Creek, and has 17+ miles of smallertributaries.

The lower Gray Wolf River:Below the Three Forks, the Gray Wolf River runs nearly 10 miles, essentially northeast, toits confluence with the Dungeness mainstem. In this lower stretch the Gray Wolf River isfed by over a dozen smaller tributaries adding another 27+ miles of stream length. Thelongest of these, Divide Creek, stretches 9+ miles with several branches, draining the northslopes of Tyler Peak and Baldy and the west side of Maynard Peak.

The Gray Wolf River and its major tributaries are within the ONP beginning about 8 milesabove its confluence with the Dungeness mainstem. Below the ONP boundary and down to2+ miles above the Dungeness, the river and its tributaries lie within the North Unit of theBuckhorn Wilderness of Olympic National Forest (ONF), and only several short tributariesjoin the Gray Wolf River below the wilderness boundary. Thus, of the roughly 17 mileslength of the Gray Wolf River, the additional 16 miles of its two major tributaries androughly 69 miles of smaller tributaries, more than 95% is protected by park or wildernessrestrictions from most human-caused degradation.

The major exception to the unexploited character of the Gray Wolf River watershed is anarea of several clear cuts and a quarry to the west of Slab Camp Creek extending over toDeer Ridge. The road into the quarry area shows up on 1939 aerial photos, and theclear-cuts are evident in 1980 photos. The north boundary of the wilderness area establishedin 1984 jogs south to within about 1/4 mile of the river and 2400 ft. elevation (about 800 ft.above the river on the canyon slope) to exclude these evidences of development and timberharvest.

Near Camp Tony, on the Gray Wolf River just above Slab Camp Creek, are evidences of aterminal (?) moraine marking the extent of Vashon glacier ice sheet penetration up the GrayWolf River.24

__________________24 Long. 1975.



The confluence of Dungeness and Gray Wolf:The character of the watershed changes in the area where the two rivers emerge from thesteep canyons and high mountains of the Olympics to join at the Dungeness Forks, as Figure2.14 shows. All of the mountains and foothills north of a fine extending from Mt. Zion toMaynard Peak to Blue Mountain were over-topped by the latest cordilleran ice sheet. As aresult, peaks and ridges are rounded and smoothed off, and lower areas have had thickdeposits of glacial drift (tills, outwash gravels and sands, and glacial-lake-deposit silts andclays). The rivers and streams have since cut down into the deposits, bringing out bedloadand suspended sediments from this middle region of the watershed, but the extent, depth,and composition of the cordilleran glacial deposits and the nature and structural relationshipsin the underlying bedrock are not adequately known.

Perhaps one-third of this intermediate area drains into the adjacent Gray Wolf River andDungeness River channels by way of short tributaries. The remainder, the broad expanse ofland below the northeast flank of Blue Mountain, west of the river, is drained by CanyonCreek and its tributaries which extend nearly twenty miles, and by Caraco Creek, 2+ milesin length, both visible in Figure 2.14. Caraco Creek joins the Dungeness River at RM 12.1,just above the USGS gaging station. Canyon Creek joins the DR at RM 10.8, below thegage, and thus its contribution to flows is not included in gage readings.

The visual foreshortening in the view from the Sequim-Dungeness valley of the foothillswith the snow-covered peaks behind, masks the extent of this intermediate-level terrain.This leads to the common misconception that the river is steep "until it emerges from themountains" at the hatchery. In reality, the steep gradients of the upper Dungeness and GrayWolf rivers flatten somewhat coming through this intermediate-level section. The gradient isthen relatively constant (at 60 to 75 ft. per mile) for over six miles to near the Hwy. 101bridge.

This intermediate-elevation, and relatively-open terrain extends to the northernmostfoothills, Burnt Hill (2560+ ft.) and Lost Mtn. (2040+ $.). The river flows between thesefoothills in a narrow and twisting channel, cut down into glacial sediments and bedrockoutcroppings, seen in Figure 2.15. It subsequently widens into the broader valley where theDungeness State Fish Hatchery is located, as shown in Figure 2.16. Below the Hatchery thevalley broadens and flattens, the river channel widens, and begins to braid.



Characterization of the DQ Region and its water Resources 2.21


At this point we change direction, starting at the mouth of the Dungeness River atDungeness Bay, and describe the lower river watershed in an upstream direction,from its outlet up to its passage through the foothills. A series of aerial views of theriver provides the framework for this description.

The lower Dungeness River in the Sequim-Dungeness valley: Figure 2.17 provides an overall depiction of the lower Dungeness River watershed area,25

also referred to as the Sequim-Dungeness valley, basin or peninsula. The area centered onthe river is seen to have many characteristics of an alluvial fan and delta, formed solely bythe river flowing out from the mountains. The reality is more complex, however. Cordilleranglaciations, massive ice sheets repeatedly moving south and southwestward over thepeninsula and foothills areas from Canadian sources during the "ice ages," have played alarge role in the construction of this terrain [as described in more detail later, in theHydrogeology subsection of the Water Resources section of this chapter]. According toDowning (Chapter 2), the Dungeness is small and low in sediment transport by comparisonwith most Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula rivers.26 The river's role, in the intervalsbetween glaciations of the 2-million year Pleistocene "ice ages" and in the 10,000+ yearssince, has probably been in large part to rework the glacial drifts, in places cutting down intothe outwash deposits and lodgement tills, and in places transporting and re-depositing themas alluvium over the terrain we now see.27

Examination of the broad, relatively flat Sequim-Dungeness peninsula shows substantialrelief. Foothill features (Burnt Hill, Lost Mountain, Bell Hill, and the hills of theMcDonald/Seibert/ Bagley uplands) have lodgement till deposits and bedrock exposuresfrom over topping by the cordilleran glaciers. Upland valleys (Happy Valley, Texas Valley)suggest evidences of glacial lake ponding and recessional outflows. East-west ridges(Hogback, Dungeness Heights/ Potholes, Grennan, Madrona, etc.) suggest ice-contactkame-terrace and esker glacial outwash deposits. Maps of the surficial geology of the area28

illustrate these and other features and suggest the present (and probable ancestral) riverflood plains. Figure 2.18 is a topographic relief map, generated from the USGS digitalelevation data, illustrating the relief and surface drainage patterns of the area as shown in thepictorial of Figure 2.17.

_________________________25 The Dungeness River Area Watershed Management Plan, 1993, produced under a Centennial Clean

Water Fund grant, encompassed the upper Dungeness/Gray Wolf basins and the majority of the terrainshown in Figure 2.17. The western boundary, between Bagley and Morse creeks, was considered torepresent a hydrogeologic western limit for the lands west of the Dungeness. A line across the face ofBurnt Hill, across Happy Valley, through Sequim, and to the shoreline north of Sequim Bay wasconsidered as the boundary with the Sequim Bay watershed.

26 Downing, J. The Coast of Puget Sound: Its Processes and Development. 1983.27 Wennekens, M.P. Unpublished Technical Notes and Technical Committee presentations, 1993-4, has

identified the area of McDonald, Seibert and Bagley creeks as a separate hydrologic region, distinct fromthe Dungeness drainage. Wennekens has also shown, from topography and soils mapping, the alluvialdevelopment of the Dungeness flood-plain areas.

28 Othberg, K. and Palmer, P. Preliminary surficial Geologic Map(s) of the Carlsborg (Sequim, Dungeness,Gardiner) Quadrangle(s), Clallam County, Washington. 1979.



Figures 2.19 (a to n) are views of the lower Dungeness River taken from the USFShelicopter-video survey, flying south from the Dungeness Bay.29 These views show theinstability of the channel, as well as the human impacts -- dikes, bridges, over winteringponds and gravel traps and gravel mines.30 The problems are particularly evident in Figure2.19 (e) where west bank erosion has claimed much farmland, below the Rail Road bridge,and in Figure 2.19 (m) where impingement of a river meander threatens to undermine FishHatchery Road above a vertical bank. Captions accompanying the figures indicate importantfeatures.

Other features of the Sequim Dungeness peninsula are discussed later in thischapter, in the Coastal Uplands, Lowlands and Shorelines section.

__________________________29 The USFS Olympic National Forest undertook a helicopter videotape reconnaissance of

rivers and streams of the Olympics in the spring of 1993, with participation by the DQproject enabling coverage of DQ Region in areas outside of Forest Service lands. Thecoverage, of both oblique area views and near vertical river-course surveillance,included continuous on-frame position and track information. Videotape coverage isavailable for the Dungeness River and Gray Wolf up to the Olympic National Parkboundaries, including the Canyon, Caraco, Gold, and Sleepy Hollow creek tributaries;the Big Quilcene River including Tunnel and Townsend creek tributaries; the LittleQuilcene River, McDonald Creek; Jimmycomelately Creek; Chimacum Creek; andMarrowstone and Indian Islands. Aerial photo views throughout this chapter have beencaptured from the videotape by computer digitization for reproduction here.

30 Wennekens, M.P. Unpublished DQ Technical Note examining the extent and implications of gravelremoval from the lower Dungeness river channel. November 1993.



The Watershed of the Big Quilcene River

7he following brief characterization sketch identifies the major features of the watershedAn early DQ field tour provided first-hand looks at the Quilcene watersheds forparticipants.31

The Big Quilcene watershed has been identified as a key watershed under authority of thePresident's Forest Plan and the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Teamprocess, and detailed assessments are underway. A preliminary watershed assessmentprepared by a Local Interagency Team in April 1994 has much useful information 32 Afurther watershed analysis is underway, to be completed in fall 1994 by an interagencytaskforce co-directed by USFS and WDNR.33

The Big Quilcene River:The watershed of the second largest river in the DQ region is bounded by the watersheds of theDungeness, the Dosewallips, and the Little Quilcene, as indicated on the map in Figure 2.20, andin the pictorial view of Figure 2.21. The watershed encompasses about 70 sq. miles in the south-central portion of the DQ region. A diversion dam at RM 9.3 controls a major diversion into apipeline for Port Townsend and the paper mill. The mainstem of the Big Quilcene extends over20 miles, with headwaters on the southeast slopes of Buckhorn Mtn. and the northeast slopes ofPeak 6852, in the vicinity of Camp Mystery and Marmot Pass (crossing into the Dungenesswatershed). Tunnel Creek, the largest tributary, joins the river just above the diversion damvisible in Figure 2.22. Tunnel Creek headwaters drain the east slopes of Mt. Constance andWarrior Peak, beginning at elevations near 6000 ft. The other major tributary, Townsend Creekjoins the river from the north at river mile 12.8. Townsend Creek headwaters begin on thesoutheast slopes of Mt. Townsend and the east slopes of Welch Peaks at elevations above 4000ft.

_______________________31 Murphy, A., and others, DQ field trip and related briefing notes, Fall 1992.32 Local Interagency Team (USFWS lead). Big Quilcene River Basin Preliminary Watershed Assessment. April

1994.33 See description in Chapter 7, J.4.



No long-term gaging of flows is available, but data from a period in the early 1970's showed a12-month mean flow of 215 cubic feet per second (cfs) downstream of Penny Creek. An overalllong-term annual average flow for the river is probably about 200 cfs, when adjusted for thewetter-than-normal period of gaging and for the upstream diversion.34

Several clear cuts along the mainstem were logged to the river, without buffer zones, both aboveand below the confluence with Townsend Creek. The two above Townsend Creek apparentlydate to the 1960's and the early 1980'S.35 A habitat restoration project has been undertaken by theUS Forest Service (USFS) in the past several years on the logged stretch below TownsendCreek.36 The river enters a steep canyon or gorge at about RM 7.4, several miles below thediversion darn, as shown in Figure 2.23. At approximately river Mae 7.2 a steep cascade occurs.In some fisheries literature this has been interpreted as limiting the upstream travel of salmonids,but recent scouting of the river suggests that similar cascades on other northwest rivers arenegotiated.37

The diversion pipeline parallels the river, rising relatively higher above its north (left) bank, fromthe diversion dam into the beginning of the gorge. It then circles around a point just below the1000 ft. elevation level and turns north along the east flank of the Quilcene Range, and up thePenny Creek watershed.

At about RM 5.8, the deep gorge and the river turn north where Elbo Creek, draining thenortheast slopes of Buck Mtn., joins the river. At this point Hwy. 10 1, heading north from HoodCanal and Brinnon, has passed through the narrow vee (Walker Pass) between Buck Mtn. andMt. Walker. It parallels the river gorge downstream around the west side of Mt. Walker, at firstabout 300 ft. above the river. At about RM 4.5 Falls View Campground overlooks the river,where a small tributary drains the west slopes of Mt. Walker and a larger tributary, Falls Creek,drops from the southeast slopes of the Quilcene Range. Below here the river canyon broadens.The small residential community of Hidddendale occupies the east bank in the vicinity of RM3.5, above another tributary draining the northwest slopes of Mt. Walker. The river channel isreportedly unstable in high-flow conditions here, with bank erosion and flooding. The riverstretch immediately above the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery at RM 2.7 is braided. Thediversion of Big Quilcene water for the hatchery occurs in this segment. The hatchery also has aright for water withdrawal from Penny Creek, which joins the river just below the hatchery, fromthe north.

Figure 2.25 (a-h) are views of the lower 4 miles of the Big Quilcene River, from the mouth tomeanders above the hatchery. This segment is also illustrated on Figure 2.24.

__________________________34 Clark, W. An Overview of the Water Resources of the DQ Pilot Project Area. March 1993. Unpublished DQ

technical note. The estimate adjusted the 12-month USGS gaging in 1971-2 downward by correlation withlong-term Dungeness River records, and added 30 cfs for estimated average annual diversion, per data fromParker, J.G., An Analysis of the Water Resource Management of the Big and Little Quilcene River Basins,1984.

35 Wood. 1984.36 Donald, M., USFS Quilcene RD, presentation during 1992 DQ field trip to Quilcene watersheds.37 Volk, C. Personal communication. 1993.



The river channel was apparently channelized and straightened in the stretch between river mile2.7 and 2.0 (downstream from the Hwy. 101 bridge) at some time between 1962 and 1972, whichmay contribute to the sediment load for recent aggradation.38

Flooding has been a recurrent problem in the lowest portion of the river, in the area shown onFigure 2.24, presumably aggravated by aggradation in recent years. Aggradation has been in therange of 2 feet in the river stretch between river mile 1. 0 and 0. 5, and as much as 7 feet belowriver mile 0.5. Diking and gravel removal efforts have exacerbated fisheries habitat andcontributed to channel instability without eliminating the flooding potential.39

The geology of the watershed area is characterized by bedrock of the Crescent Formation (theoceanic-crustal "peripheral rocks" horseshoe of the Peninsula) covered in lowland and river-valley areas by glacial drifts. The upper watershed (west of approximately Jolley Creek on themainstem and Mt. Crag south of Tunnel Creek) is entirely in the lower, massive flows unit of thebasalt Crescent formation. The major portion of the mainstem out to about the hatchery and theHwy. 101 bridge, is in the upper unit of the Crescent formation, also principally basalt, butcontaining less massive flows, more breccias and sedimentary interbeds than the lower Crescentunit. Below the Hwy. 10 1 bridge and in the Penny Creek subwatershed, surficial units overlyingthe bedrock are principally cordilleran glacial drifts, some reworked as alluvium. Some alluviumoccurs in the upper east-west reaches of the mainstem, Tunnel, and Townsend creeks. Oneimpressive feature is the extent of cut-down of the river gorge in the upper unit of the Crescentbasalts. Another is the bedded glacial lake and outwash deposits exposed, for example, in thehillsides behind the hatchery and southeast of the Hwy. 101 bridge.40

The Watershed of the Little Quilcene River

The Little Quilcene watershed is bounded by the Big Quilcene, the Dungeness, the Snow Creek(Andrews Creek tributary) and the Donovan and Tarboo Creek watersheds. The area is shown inFigure 2.26. The watershed encompasses about 30 sq. miles, immediately north of the BigQuilcene. The mainstem is about 12 miles in length, with another 60+ miles in tributaries.41

The mainstem headwaters begin above 4400 ft. on the north slopes of Mt. Townsend. TheDeadfall Creek tributary begins above 3 600 ft. on the 4600+ ft. peak southwest of Bon Jon Passand on the southwest slopes of Mt. Zion at the Pass. Dry Creek and several unnamed tributariesbegin on the north and east slopes of Green Mountain at about 3400 ft.

______________________________38 Collins, B. Sediment Transport and Deposition in the Lower Big Quilcene River and Evaluation of Planned

Gravel Removal for Flood Control. 1993.39 Collins. 1993.40 Long. 1975. Long notes that the Big Quilcene River apparently at one time flowed through Walker Pass to

Jackson Cove and Hood Canal, in the present watercourse of Spencer Creek. A terminal moraine blocked theriver course between Mt. Walker and Mt. Buck in some alpine glaciation episode of the Pleistocene, resultingin the river being diverted northward. It has eroded its deep gorge in the upper unit of the Crescent formationsince that time.

41 Parker. 1984.



A diversion dam structure on the Little Quilcene at RM 7.2 (about 1000 ft. elevation) divertswater for the Olympic Gravity Water System (Port Townsend and the Port Townsend PaperMill) under a water right for about 9.6 cfs. The water is diverted to Lords Lake, a reservoir lakefor the system, shown in Figure 2.27, from which it is fed into the gravity water pipe to CityLake as needed.42 [The diversion structure was damaged in storm flows of Dec. 1993.]

Ripley and Howe Creeks drain lower elevations in the foothills of the Quilcene Range. A smallcreek flows into Leland Lake from near the 500 ft. level on the upland northeast of the lake, andLeland creek flows south out of Leland Lake and joins the Little Quilcene just east of Highway101 at about RM 1.5, north of the town of Quilcene, near the view in Figure 2.28. The averageannual flow for the Little Quilcene, as measured over a 7-year period at a gage near the LelandCreek outlet, approximates 54 cfs (after diversion for the Port Townsend water right).43

The Watersheds of Smaller Streams Originating in the Mountains

Salmon and Snow creeks originate in mountainous terrain considered as part of theDiscovery Bay watershed A characterization report has been prepared for a non-point-pollution watershed management planning effort for the area, although the project is notcompleted 7he material included here is largely taken from that report 44

The Salmon and Snow Creek drainages originate in the Olympic foothills in the northeast comerof the Olympic National Forest, Quilcene Ranger District and empty into the head of DiscoveryBay. These were some of the earliest timber production sites in the DQ region, with thesettlement of Discovery Bay and an early sawmill by the 1860's, providing lumber that wasshipped down the Pacific Coast. The bulk of the old growth timber was harvested early, andseveral large fires burned over 12,000 acres of the watersheds around 1925. Harvesting wasminor over the half-century after the fires up to the 1980's, but about 20% of the forest land hasbeen harvested within the past 10 years.

Salmon Creek:Salmon Creek and its tributary streams aggregate 59 miles in length, and encompass a watershedof 16.5 sq. miles in area. Figure 2.29 characterizes the area.

Limited flow measurements suggest an annual average discharge of about 8.4 cfs. Theheadwaters originate on the northern slopes of Mt. Zion, above 3400 ft. in elevation. Over 90%of the watershed is forest land, with about half in public ownership (USFS, WIDNR). Most ofthe public forest land is in 50+ yr. age stands; about 1/3 of the privately held forest lands havebeen harvested in the past 10 years. The lowest mile of the creek flows through

______________________________42 Parker. 1984.43 Parker. 1984.44 PSCRBT. Discovery Bay Watershed (Characterization). November 1992. The watershed as defined for this

report includes the eastern half of Miller Peninsula with Eagle and Contractors creeks, the mountainous andlower watersheds of Salmon and Snow creeks and their tributaries, and the northern and western portions ofQuimper Peninsula. The characterization includes much useful information as well as GIS-based coverages forland coverage and land use. surface waters- geology and soils- etc.



pasture land and is degraded by animal access and lack of shade. Some residential developmentis beginning in the lower area, adjacent to Uncas Road and Hwy. 101.

Snow Creek:Snow Creek and its tributaries encompass a watershed of almost 23 sq. miles, also within thearea shown in Figure 2.29.

The stream has an annual average discharge of 22 cfs. Prior to development in the area whichresulted in the present channelized outlet at the east side of the valley, Snow Creek emptied intoSalmon Creek near its estuary at the head of Discovery Bay (and still connects in floodingconditions). Headwaters originate on the east and northeast slopes of Mt. Zion, above 3600 ft.elevation. Trappers Creek and Andrews Creek including Crocker Lake, are the major tributaries.Prior to development in the area, Andrews Creek apparently flowed south into Leland Lake; thusits 7.5 sq. mile subwatershed (about 1/3 of the Snow Creek watershed) was tributary to the LittleQuilcene River, and Crocker Lake had no natural outlet. The Snow Creek watershed is over 90%forest land, with about 60% in public ownership since the recent DNR purchase of troubledforest lands. Large clear cuts in the 1980's and absence of riparian zone buffers have causedstream-degradation problems in the middle and upper portions of the watershed on the south sideof Big Skidder Hill. Near the Discovery Bay outlet, and in the Crocker Lake area degradationfrom animal access, lack of channel shading, and vegetation growth are problems.

Several other small streams begin at relative high elevations in mountainous terrain,influenced by snowpack and increased precipitation, and flow north to the strait or SequimBay from the mountain/foothill front. Jimmycomelately Creek is depicted in Figure 2.30.McDonald and Seibert creeks are illustrated in Figure 2.32.



McDonald Creek:45

McDonald Creek begins at about the 4200 ft. elevation on the northeast flank of Blue Mountain,with several branches in incised canyons suggesting large flows at some times in the past. [Thedeep cirque-like canyon in the northeast flank of Blue Mountain from which these streams flowcould conceivably have supported significant snow fields in earlier times.] Another tributarybegins in an interior valley/saddle to the northeast, just north of peak 3455, at an elevation ofabout 2000 ft., draining some of the interior glacial-drift mantled terrain.

Farther north, several tributaries drain the area around the west end of Texas Valley (actually along saddle), in incised channels that begin at about 1400 ft. elevation. [These, and the highertributary draining the glacial-drift area could have temporarily drained mid-Dungenessephemeral glacial lakes while the lower Dungeness outlet was still plugged by the ice sheet.]Other tributaries that drain the west end of Lost Mountain join the stream out beyond the base ofthe mountain at about the 400 ft. level near the west end of Atterberry Road. Peterson Creek,which joins from the west somewhat above the 400 ft. level, begins in elevated, but lessprecipitous terrain near Round Top and Van Kuren IEII, and flows across gently sloping lands onthe east side of Blue Mountain Road.

The Agnew irrigation ditch crosses the creek in a siphon structure in the 400 ft. elevation areawest of the end of Atterberry Road, and a connection delivers some water to McDonald Creekfor conveyance to a diversion further downstream. The stream channel is deeply incised in thecoastal upland and through the coastal bluff to drain into the Strait.

No continuous flow measurements have been recorded for McDonald Creek. Intermittentmeasurements have ranged from less than I cfs in late summer and early fall, to 20 and 25 cfs inmid- and late spring. Significant erosion and storm damage was reported in a 1986 winter storm.

Seibert Creek:Seibert Creek is much like McDonald Creek. Its headwaters are on the northwest flank of BlueMountain, with the east fork beginning about 3800 ft. in elevation, and the west fork about 3000ft. in elevation, farther west on the sloping ridge that defines the Maiden-Morse Creekwatershed. Seibert Creek also flows northward across the Coastal plain and through the coastalbluff in a deeply incised channel, to reach the Strait at Green Point in a small estuary.

Annual mean flows for 16 years of gaging, 1953-69, averaged 17 cfs, with a large instantaneouspeak flow reading of 1620 cfs in November 1955, (nearly 1/4 of the maximum instantaneouspeak flow of the Dungeness, recorded in 1949 as 6820 cfs).

______________________45 According to the Washington State Board on Geographic Names, June 1994, McDonald is

the correct spelling for this creek. McDonnell Creek may be used commonly in the localcommunity.



Jimmycomelately Creek:

Jimmycomelately Creek drains an extended interior foothill watershed bounded on the south byBear Mountain and the north ridge of the Gold Creek basin, on the southeast by the divideseparating it from the Snow Creek/Trapper Creek headwaters, on the northeast by BlynMountain, and on the north by Burnt IFEII and Lookout IFEII. The broad flat valley area that isthe central feature of the upper watershed has come to be called Palo Alto, presumably byextension from Palo Alto Road which connects it northward between Burnt Hill and Lookout11ill to Hwy. 10 1. On the west this valley, (saddle, in reality) overlooks the Dungeness Rivercanyon downstream of the Forks, some 600 ft. below, and a minor stream drains down into theDungeness below RM 15.

A west fork of Jimmycomelately Creek flows east out of this Palo Alto valley/saddle and isjoined by a south fork that originates on the southeast and east flank of Bear Mountain. Thecreek then curves north, is joined by a shorter east fork that drains the south side of BlynMountain, and flows north into the head of Sequim Bay at Blyn.

Jimmycomelately Creek, because of its extended foothills watershed in the Olympic

rainshadow, is subject to wide variations in flow. A number of spring and early summer readingshave recorded 5 to 10 cfs, and mid-summer to fall readings are often less than 2 cfs. Flows of 20to 30 cfs have been recorded in January, and April through June, and two flows of 42 and 49 cfshave been measured in June 1988 and 1990.



Coastal Uplands, Lowlands, and Shorelines

The map in Figure 2.31 can be used to identify the various coastal and lowland areas andshoreline features to be discussed in this section, in context with the rivers and streams alreadycovered.46

The Bluffs west of Dungeness Spit:Eastward from the Morse Creek estuary Oust west of the DQ boundary) to Dungeness Bay,the marine shoreline is formed by a high bluff (100-200 ft.). Bagley Creek, Siebert Creek, andMcDonald Creek have cut channels and minor estuaries beneath the bluffs, and landslides havemodified the bluffs at several points. These bluffs show excellent exposures of the multiplelithologies in the unconsolidated sediments of the coastal plains. The bluffs are evident inFigure 2.32

The coastal plain west of the Dungeness:The gently sloping plain behind the bluffs extends south to a series of low basaltic foothills, thelargest being Lost Mountain (2000+ ft.), and finally to the northwest-trending ridge of BlueMountain which forms the divide for the Maiden Creek watershed and part of the westernboundary of the DQ region. The northern portions of this coastal plain are mostly in farm andrural residential land uses, with strip commercial activities near the highways. The southern,higher portions are largely still in forest cover, either State or private ownership. There havebeen many substantial timber cuts in recent years.

Dungeness Bay:Dungeness Bay is a major tidewater feature on the Strait of Juan de Fuca, shown in Figure 2.32.The Dungeness Spit has been formed and is maintained by longshore currents in the Straittransporting and depositing materials eroded from the bluffs by wind and wave action.Longshore currents from the west maintain the outside of Dungeness Spit, while northeasterlycurrents maintain the south (inner) side of Dungeness Spit east of Graveyard Spit and the eastside of Graveyard Spit, and carry fine sediments into the inner bay. To a lesser extent, andmostly during storm events, the river contributes sediments for deposit, both to extend its estuaryand to be transported into the inner bay. One storm event in recent years is reported to haveburied ellgrass and oyster-beds in the bay with 1-2 feet of sediments. However, there isobviously some equilibrium in sediment movements into and out of the inner bay -- one reasonquoted for moving from Old Dungeness to New Dungeness in 1890 was concern that the innerbay was filling up with silt!

The Dungeness Spit is considered to be robust and expanding. The spit has reportedly grownnearly 1800 ft. in length between an 1855 survey and the 1970's. In the same period the mouth ofthe river has shifted east a similar amount, and the intertidal zone beyond and east of the

_______________________46 Much of the detail for shoreline and bluff geology and features for Jefferson County is from the Coastal Zone

Atlas of Washington: Volume 11: Jefferson County, WA Ecology, 1978.



river mouth has shifted and extended north.47 (Downing, 1983 [from Bortleson et at, 19801). [Incontrast, Ediz Hook at Port Angeles has suffered since its sediment sources were diminished bydamming of the Elwha River and building a sea-wall at the toe of the bluffs west of the Hook toprotect a pipeline from the Elwha River.48]

The Coast Guard lighthouse near the end of the spit, reportedly the first on the Pacific Coast, wasfirst lighted in 1857. A well drilled at the lighthouse location on the Spit in 1930 is 667 ft. deep.Saltwater was found at about 300 ft. depth, but on drilling deeper an 80 gpm flowing artesianwell was constructed providing fresh water.49

Dungeness and Graveyard Spits and portions of the bay are designated as a National WildlifeRefuge and managed by USFWS, especially for benefit of migrating waterfowl, and it is knownas an exceptional site for birding. Clallam County Parks maintains a popular campground nearthe base of the spit, adjacent to the wildlife refuge entrance. In recent years the spit and the innerbay have been increasingly used as a public recreational site, to some detriment of the wildliferefuge function, and more stringent access restrictions are now being considered and enforced.

Shellfish farming and harvest are important commercial and recreational activities. The Port ofPort Angeles (County) maintains a boat launch facility near the entrance to the inner bay.

A dock on pilings was built out to the north-northeast from New Dungeness in 1891, and was amajor shipping port. One account states its length as 4300 ft.,50 but a 1942 aerial photo shows alength of about 2800 ft. It was taken out of service in 1941.

East of the Dungeness Estuary:As illustrated in Figure 2.33, for nearly 5 miles east and south-eastward from the Dungenessestuary the coastal land is at sea level, the intertidal zone is broad, and the 10-meter depth linelies as much as 1.5 miles offshore. The northwest portion in the vicinity of Meadowbrook Creekfeatures privately-restored wetlands that were once slated for development. The middle section,Jamestown, is the property purchased as homeland by the Jamestown Mallam Indian Tribe in the1870's when they resisted being relocated to the Skokomish reservation at the south end of HoodCanal.51 The last section, Graysmarsh, was reportedly a salt marsh until a control gate was builtat the mouth of Gierin Creek in recent decades.

Beyond Graysmarsh the bluff occurs again, now only 80 ft. high, broken by a narrow defileleading to the beach at Port Williams. Now a County beach, the wharf and settlement at PortWilliams was an important shipping point for Sequim from the 1890's until abandoned in the

________________________47 Downing, J. 1983.48 Galster. Ediz Hook: A Case History of Coastal Erosion and Mitigation. (In Engineering Geology in

Washington). 1989.49 Noble, J.B. A Preliminary Report on the Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Sequim-Dungeness

Area. 1960.50 Keeting, V., Editor. Dungeness, The Lure of a River: A Bicentennial History of the East End of Clallarn

County. 1976.51 Dungeness: the Lure of a River. 1976.



1920's. A flume, and later a pipeline, carried water from the early irrigation system to besupplied to ships at the wharf.52

South of Port Williams the bluff recedes back from the shoreline and Gibson Spit has formed tothe south, enclosing the lagoon at Washington Harbor, the mouth of Bell Creek. The bluffreappears at the south side of Washington Harbor, and a major marine research institution,Battelle Northwest, has facilities at bluff-top and at water level. This is the entry to Sequim Bay.

Meadowbrook, Cooper, Cassalery, Gierin, Bell Creeks:Bell Creek begins in the uplands of Happy Valley and the north flank of Burnt Hill, and flowsthrough the eastern portion of Sequim, to flow into the lagoon at Washington Harbor, justoutside Sequim Bay. The other creeks are fed from ground-water springs and irrigation ditchtailwaters, and discharge to the Strait, east of Dungeness Bay.

Sequim Bay:The bay is shown in Figure 2.33. Travis Spit has formed from the east, almost totally closing theentrance to the bay. The bay is about 3 1/2 miles north-to-south, and over a mile wide. The depthincreases from broad tidal flats at the south end (the mouth of Jimmycomelately and Deancreeks) to about 60 feet at the middle, and several deeper trenches along the northwest side reachabout 120 feet depth.

Shellfish production is important in the bay. The settlement of Blyn and the JamestownS'Klallam Tribal Center are at the southeast end of the bay, a log dump operates at the southwestcomer. Sequim Bay State Park is on the west side, and John Wayne Marina, built in the late1980's and operated by Port of Port Angeles, is farther north on the west side. Private residentialholdings occupy the remainder of the west side, near water level, and most of the east side, onmoderate bluffs.

The Sequim Bay Watershed Management Plan was the early action watershed project forClallarn County,53 and implementation of its recommendations is underway.

Johnson Creek begins in two branches near the top of Burnt Hill and flows north-northeast pastthe east side of Bell IFEII and into Sequim Bay at Pitship Point (now the site of the marina). Ithas cut a substantial ravine into the glacial drifts of the north flank of Burnt all and the slopeseast of Bell Hill. Flow measurements include several (spring storm event ?) peaks near 10 cfs,and otherwise mostly values in the 2 to 6 cf; range. Two September readings of less than I cfs arerecorded, and no winter readings are available.

Dean Creek is farther south than Johnson Creek, and drains the east side of Burnt I-Ell and thenorthwest side of Lookout Hill, paralleling Palo Alto Road. It drains into Sequim Bay at thehead, west of the Jimmycomelately outlet.

__________________________________52 Dungeness: the Lure of a River. 1976.53 Clallam County Water Quality Office. Sequim Bay Watershed Management Plan. 1992.



The Miller Peninsula bluffs:The peninsula also shows in Figure 2.33. Around the northeast comer of Sequim Bay, behind thebase of Travis Spit, the bluffs are about 120 ft. high. The bluffs form an abrupt, almost east-westsquare front to the peninsula, reaching a height of 320 ft. about 2 miles east of the base of TravisSpit, and maintaining a height of more than 200 ft. across the four+ mile width of the peninsulato Diamond Point on the northeast comer. A small defile about two-thirds of the way acrossdrains a portion of the plateau above about a mile back, and has provided erosion sedimentsprobably partly responsible for the small, recurved Thompson Spit to the east that traps a smalllagoon. [A deep coastline oil test well exists at this location]

A somewhat larger recurved spit and enclosed lagoon has formed at the acute-angled northeastcomer of the peninsula and the entrance to Discovery Bay. This Diamond Point Spit was thelocation of a Klallam Indian village at the time of first white settlements in the 1850's, and wasbriefly a military reservation in the 1860's (together with Protection Island and Cape George). Inthe 1890's a public health quarantine station for leprosy and other communicable disease caseswas established that was in use until the 1930'S.54 The spit area is now a small residentialcommunity, as is the stepped bluffs area immediately behind.

Highway 101 and the former railroad bed, near sea-level around the base of the bay throughBlyn, rise inland to the northeast to cross the Miller Peninsula at about 200 ft. elevation. ChickenCoop Road, an early passage route, follows a more easterly line at about the 400 ft. elevation,turning north at mid-peninsula where it crosses the north-flowing headwaters of Eagle Creek.

The north portion of Miller Peninsula is forested. A large tract was set aside from DNR forestlands in the early 1980's for eventual establishment of a State park. In the late 1980's adestination resort was proposed by a foreign development group that would have occupied thecentral portion of the peninsula, bordering the park on the west and wrapping around theresidential enclave of the Diamond Point area to the east. Local opposition and internationaleconomic conditions ended the resort plans, and more of the land has since been transferredfi7om DNR forest lands to enlarge the projected park.

Protection Island:This small island, 1+ mile long west-to-east and 1/2 mile wide, and mostly less than 200 ft.above sea level, shelters the entrance to Discovery Bay. Captain Vancouver anchored in the leeof the island and remarked about the protection it afforded.55 In the late 1860's the island,together with Diamond Point (then Clallam Point) and Cape George were established as amilitary reservation for a few years.56 In the mid-1900's it was being developed with roads andlots as a vacation development. In the 1980's, a campaign to preserve the island, primarily asnesting habitat for seabirds, resulted in its acquisition and establishment as a National WildlifeRefugee.

___________________54 Dungeness: the Lure of a River. 1976.55 Meany, E. The Vancouver Journals. 1927?56 Dungeness: The Lure of a River. 1976.



Discovery Bay:The bay is visible in Figures 2.33 and 2.34. The bluffs continue around the comer from DiamondPoint to the south into Discovery Bay for 1+ mile and then diminish where Eagle Creek flowseast-northeast and drains into Discovery Bay. For the next three miles the shoreline of the baytrends south-southeast to Contractors Point. The land slopes gently to the bay from the 600 ft.contour at the base of Blyn Mountain, and Hwy. 101 crosses this area at about the 200 ft.elevation. The Gardiner Community Center and an RV park are near the highway and OldGardiner Road and the defunct railroad right-of-way are farther down the slope.

The Gardiner salt marsh, partly filled for a boat ramp and a road, is one of the few salt marsh andlagoon systems of the shoreline not occurring at a sand Spit.57

South of Contractors Point the highway and an old railroad right-of-way make a wide arc to thesouth for about 3 miles, below the 200 ft. elevation on a steep side hill that extends up to above600 ft. in mostly forest lands. Kalset Point and Mill Point (Port Discovery) project from theotherwise narrow, steep shoreline, and a condominium/restaurant development is located belowthe highway.

The shoreline curves back toward the southwest and the road and railroad right-of-way drop tonear sea-level, passing by the settlements of Maynard, Discovery Bay, Discovery Junction andFairmount. The head of Discovery Bay is the estuary of Salmon Creek and Snow Creek [seesection on Watersheds of Mountain Rivers and Streams]. The estuarine and palustrine wetlandsand pasture lands are part of a narrow valley extending about 12 miles south, to Quilcene, andtraversed by Hwy. 10 1. The valley is bounded on the left by the southeast flank of BlynMountain, Big and Little Skidder Hills, and the low foothills that separate the Little Quilcenewatershed from Penny Creek of the Big Quilcene. On the east, the valley is bounded in the northend by the low hills of the west branch of the Chimacum Creek headwaters. Farther south, thelow hills separating Little Quilcene drainage from that of Tarboo and Donovan Creeks form thevalley's east side.

East of the head of Discovery Bay the land rises steeply to 500-700 ft. in wooded hillsidesoverlying volcanic (Crescent Formation) bedrock, and later marine sedimentary bedrock. Hwy.20 hugs the side of the slope with the abandoned railroad right-of-way below. It climbs steeply toabout 3 00 ft. at the Eaglemount Road intersection, then descends to about 100 ft. at theAnderson Lake Road intersection, where it continues along the steep bank almost to FourComers. At this point (Adelma Beach), the Discovery Bay east shoreline turns northwest, and amile beyond, beyond a small stream drainage at the Chevy Chase golf course, the coastal bluffappears again in unconsolidated sediments, rising to 500 ft. in height. The lower bluff portionsare mapped as pre-Vashon glacial and non-glacial, the central portions of bluff as Vashonadvance outwash, and the top portions as Vashon till and recessional outwash deposits.58 AtBeckett Point, a small recurved sandspit with lagoon has formed at the base of

___________________57 PSCRBT. Discovery Bay Watershed. 1992.58 Pessl, F., Jr, et al. Surficial Geologic Map of the Port Townsend 30 by 60 minute quadrangle. Puget Sound

Region, WA. 1989.



the 300+ ft. bluff and a road descends the bluff to a small community of beach houses. BeyondBeckett Point the shoreline extends north for about 2 miles to Cape George. Here first steepbluffs, and then bluffs receding back from the shoreline farther north to form a slopingwestward-facing shelf, are liberally dotted with residences.

The shoreline bears northeast beyond Cape George, as shown on Figures 2.34 and 2.35, andwithin a mile the bluff height drops to 100+ ft., rising again farther east towards Middle Point(McCurdy Point). This area east of the long bluff/ridge at the Discovery Bay side is mapped asVashon recessional outwash, and may represent the north end of a sinuous drainage channel.This channel extends up Chimacum and West Valleys from the glacial lakes in the Pugetlowlands, behind the wasting Vashon ice sheet. The bluffs presumably have been formed bywave and wind erosion truncating a sloping northward extension of land in the 11,000+ yearssince ice disappeared from the area.

The northern interior uplands of the peninsula, west of Port Townsend City and south to theairport and Four Comers, are of mixed land uses, though predominantly forest and farm lands.Several small lakes and wetlands occur (Strangers Lake, Buckmans Lake, and a string ofwetlands).

Past McCurdy Point the shoreline and bluffs trend east, and the almost vertical bluff reachesnearly 300 ft. height in the next 1 1/2 miles. Beyond, the bluff recedes rapidly, and anothertrough of recessional outwash deposits, nearly at sea level, crosses the peninsula from south tonorth. This trough encompasses open-water wetland areas including Chinese Gardens and KaiTai Lagoon that have been substantially altered by urban pressures,59 and are now protected asopen space.

Past the trough holding Chinese Gardens, the bluff rises sharply again for 1/2 mile, terminatingin the near-vertical 200 ft. bluff and broad sand spit of Point Wilson. The bluff and sand spitcomprise Fort Worden, active in both world wars as coastal gun emplacements, and now ahistoric park and campground, with the end of the spit reserved as a Coast Guard reservation forthe lighthouse marking the entrance to Admiralty Inlet of Puget Sound.

Admiralty Inlet:Admiralty Inlet, indicated on the map of Figure 2.31 earlier, is the principal connection between(inner) Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. [Although the entrance to the inlet is definedas an imaginary line -- as Middle Pt. (McCurdy Pt.) to Pt. Partridge on Whidbey Island byBurns,60 and as Pt. Wilson to Pt. Partridge by Steelquist,61 the narrowest place is between Pt.Wilson & Admiralty Head/Whidbey Island.] The sill there is 215 ft. depth at the shallowest at theentrance, and the deepest is over 600 ft. east of Marrowstone Island.

The north-south shoreline extending 2 miles between Pt. Wilson and Pt. Hudson is the easternboundary of the City of Port Townsend. The shoreline includes the campground/park of Fort

_______________________59 PSCRBT. Discovery Bay Watershed. 1992.60 Bums, R. The Shape and Form of Puget Sound. 1985.61 Steelquist, R.U. Ferryboat Field Guide to Puget Sound. 1989.



Worden and the Port Townsend Marine Science Center at the north, and the boating /industrialcomplex at Pt. Hudson at the south. The bluff gradually lessens in height and finally recedesback from the shoreline near Pt. Hudson. Below Pt. Hudson the deep waters of Admiralty Inletand Puget Sound extend south-southeast past Marrowstone Island, while the shoreline trendssouthwest and then south to encompass the shallow marginal basins of Port Townsend Bay andKilisut Harbor between Marrowstone and Indian Islands.

Port Townsend Bay:The bay is a relatively shallow marginal basin off of Admiralty Inlet, shown in the generalpictorial of Figure 2.35. Greatest depths are 90 to 120 ft., off of Pt. Hudson, but typically 40 to50 ft. in the eastern portion near the harbor developments of the City of Port Townsend. A 30 to50 ft. depth shoal/bank (Mid-Channel Bank) extending north from Marrowstone Island providesa buffer from Admiralty Inlet.

City of Port Townsend:A southeast-facing bluff of Vashon lodgement till separates Water Street and the harbor area

from the upland portions of the city. Slightly further west the lowland/wetland trough setsthe City uplands off from the rest of Quimper Peninsula.

Glen Cove:The cove, the westernmost head of the wide Port Townsend Bay, is mapped as partially coastalpond and freshwater marsh, but is largely occupied by the Port Townsend Paper Mill.

Kala Point, and uplands south from Old Fort Townsend:Figure 2.35 illustrates this area. Bluffs of 100 to 200 ft. height extend from Glen Covesoutheastward 2+ miles to Kala Point and Kuhn Spit, a recurved spit with lagoon. Uplands rise toabout 300 ft. elevation behind these bluffs and between Glen Cove and the Jefferson CountyInternational Airport just north of Four Comers on Highway 20. The south edge of theselodgement till uplands bounds the northwestward extension of the recessional outwash glacialsediments and alluvium of West Valley and Beaver/Chimacum Valley. [The Chimacum estuaryis discussed below, after a general description of the Chimacum drift plain.]

Port Hadlock:A south-pointing sand spit partially encloses a small inner lagoon in the embayment. Theshoreline bluffs extend east as a small peninsula ending at the Portage Canal that separatesIndian Island. Winter storm winds from the northeast did considerable damage here in the early1990's.

Kilisut Harbor/Indian Island/Marrowstone Island:The Islands are shown in Figure 2.35. Indian Island, nearest to the Quimper Peninsula mainland,is separated from the mainland by the 3/4-mile long Portage Canal east of Port Hadlock, shownin Figure 2.36. The island, about 4 miles long and nearly a mile wide, is almost completelydevoted to a naval reservation, with dock facilities on the north and west sides. Bluffs, typically100 ft. high, cross the north end of the island with blunt sand spits



developed at the comers. Lower bluffs line the west side and the east side slopes to water fromthe 200 ft. elevation at the island's center. The south half of the island rises to nearly 400 ft. atJorgenson Hill, and ends with sandy beaches and a public tidelands park at the north end of OakBay.

The south end of Port Townsend Bay, between Indian Island and the mainland, reaches depths ofabout 75 ft. Kilisut Harbor between Indian and Marrowstone Islands is nowhere deeper than 40ft. It is protected from the open waters of Admiralty Inlet by an interrupted sand spit, (Rat Island)off the northwest comer of Marrowstone that extends part way across the north end of IndianIsland.

Marrowstone Island is 6 1/2 miles long, and over a mile wide at north and south, narrowing toless than 1/2 mile in the middle at Mystery Bay and the Nordland community. The north end, aformer military reservation and now Fort Flagler State Park, terminates in 100 ft. bluffs withsand spits at the comers. The northeast comer is a sandy beach, Marrowstone Point, and isoccupied by a Coast Guard reservation and the Marrowstone Lighthouse. The east side of theisland has substantial bluffs at north and south, exposed to Admiralty Inlet, and a stretch of lowbeach in the middle. The southwest comer of the Island is tied to Indian Island by a causewayacross tidelands, as shown in Figure 2.37. The bulk of the island is gentle sloping land withelevations up to 180 ft., and has largely low-density residential land use.

The surficial geology of both islands is predominantly Vashon lodgement tills, underlain byother glacial sediments. Jorgenson Hill on Indian Island is of Eocene marine sedimentary rockwith dikes of volcanics. Seawater intrusion into water wells is a major problem on MarrowstoneIsland, as is discussed later in the Plan. The naval establishment on Indian Island and the Statepark on Marrowstone are provided with water by pipeline from the mainland (City of PortTownsend water supply).



The Chimacum drift plain:Grimstad and Carson (1981) in their study of geology and ground water of eastern JeffersonCounty, described the area south of a Port Discovery-Hadlock line and extending down toSquamish Bay and the head of Tarboo and Quilcene Bays, as a drift plain of extensive surficialdeposits of glacial outwash and lodgement tills. The tills, a compact, generally nearlyimpermeable layer, have protected lower outwash layers from erosion, especially along blufftops. The surficial tills are covered by developed soils and post-glacial alluvial deposits in manyareas, but serve to limit recharge to the more permeable strata below. Many small lakes andwetlands in the area are seated in depressions in the Vashon lodgement tills.

Figure 2.38, a digital relief map illustration of the entire eastern Jefferson County area, illustratesthe topography and regional drainage of the area. The descriptions presented in this chapterdescribe the Chimacum drift plain piecemeal, as parts contiguous to coastal bluffs and drainageareas of streams considered potentially important as fish habitat.

The Chimacum Creek estuary:Figure 2.39 is a view from Port Townsend Bay of the estuary and lower segment of the stream.[A closer view is presented elsewhere in the Plan in a discussion of wetlands.] The streamterminates in a deep defile extending nearly a mile back in the 100 ft. bluffs, with the tidalestuary extending halfway back and the marsh beyond. The bluffs and uplands north of theestuary are mapped as Vashon lodgement till overlying advance outwash sediments, while southof the estuary the bluffs and slopes occupied by the communities of Irondale and Hadlock aremapped as Vashon recessional and ice-contact outwash.

The Chimacum Creek watershed:Chimacum Creek is a study in contrasts. Its outflow at Port Townsend Bay is a spectaculartideland estuary of mudflats and bluffs, as shown above. Half a mile farther up it is a meanderingstream in the woods, shown in Figure 2.40. A ways further upstream it is a backyard streamamong suburban residences, as seen in Figure 2.41, where the stream gaging station is locatedupstream of the road culvert. Farther upstream the Creek passes gravel pits and more residences,and another culvert near Ness' Comer.

Near the Chimacum Grange and the Community Center the two upstream branches join in athicket between fields, seen in Figure 2.42. The East Fork represents about 1/3 of the total flow,and the West Fork 2/3, at the confluence.62

The East Fork, seen in Figure 2.43, flows down the flat-bottomed Beaver Valley (ChimacumValley on the topo maps). It begins about due west from Mats Bay, where small headwaterstreams drain from the uplands east and west of the 180 ft. elevation valley floor, and flow about4 1/2 miles north to the confluence.

The West Fork flows toward the Chimacum confluence down the broader West (Center) Valley,also channeled between farm fields, as shown in Figure 2.44. A tributary stream,____________________62 Roger Short, personal communication. Short also toured the entire Chimacum Creek watershed and other parts

of the Chimacum drift plain with the writer, for perspective.



Naylors Creek, the outlet from Gibbs Lake, flows out from the uplands to the west to join theWest Fork about 2 miles south of the confluence. The location of the upstream gage fartherupstream on the West Fork, (placed by USGS for the DQ project), is illustrated in Figure 2.45,just below the West Valley Road culvert, about 1/2 mile north (downstream) of the junction withEaglemount Road, near Center.

Upstream from Center, the Chimacum West Fork flows eastward out from the uplands. A slidearea, apparently resulting from road building and logging, has caused sedimentation in the creek,which is being controlled by a sediment basin.

The west branch of Chimacum Creek begins in the logged-over uplands southeast of DiscoveryBay, near City Lake. The general area is illustrated in Figure 2.46, south of Delanty Lake. Thestream flows south out of Delanty Lake at about the 500 ft. elevation, 1 1/2 miles south ofDiscovery Bay along the Eaglemount road. About 2 miles south a tributary from Peterson Lake,also at 500 ft. elevation, joins the stream and it turns east, to drop down toward Center. [It isinteresting to note that in this stretch Chimacum Creek is only about 1/2 mile from theheadwaters of Tarboo Creek, also originating in these uplands but flowing south to Dabob Bay.]



Oak Bay:The wide open bay extends from Portage Canal at the south end of Indian Island to Olele Point,about 3 miles southeast, and is protected somewhat by Indian and Marrowstone Islands. Oak Bayis visible on Figure 2.47, and on Figure 2.35 above. There are no significant surface waterdrainages into the bay. The north portion has a low but steep bluff that softens into a graduallysloping shoreline in the southern part. Marine sedimentary bedrock (Eocene sandstone) isexposed along the base of the bluff.

Broad tidelands are protected as parks at the north end of the bay, east of Portage Canal, onIndian Island, and west of the canal below the community of Oak Bay. There is substantialresidential development along the shoreline. Bay Road parallels the shoreline at about the 150 ft.elevation.

Mats Mats Bay:Figure 2.47 shows Mats Mats Bay. A narrow shallow channel leads into the enclosed bay fromthe northeast, between the basaltic bedrock masses of Olele Point and Basalt Point. Thenorthwest end of the bay is mapped as a mudflat at the outlet of a small stream from the west.The west shoreline of the bay is the base of a moderate hillside slope of glacial tills, rising to400-500 ft. uplands. The area surrounding the bay is residentially developed, and a basalt quarryoccupies the east side.

Port Ludlow and Ludlow Creek:Figure 2.47 illustrates this area. The entrance to Port Ludlow Bay is over 2 miles wide, fromBasalt Point at the northwest to Tala Point at the southeast. A narrow channel around Klas Rockoff Basalt Point and between Snake Rock/light and the Colvos Rocks/light is greater than 60 ft.deep. A sill less than 25 ft. in depth stretches from' Colvos Rocks south to Tala Point, Only a lownarrow peninsula terminating at Basalt Point separates the outer portion of the bay from MatsMats Bay to the north. Below this peninsula the east-facing shoreline of the outer Port LudlowBay is a continuous rise for 1/2+ mile back to a 400-500 ft. highland, mostly stable Vashonglacial till, rather than a precipitous bluff. Considerable residential community development hasoccurred on this slope and highland, including the communities of Mats Mats, Swansonville, andPort Ludlow at the south end where the bay turns inward at a point modified with artificial fill.

The north shoreline of the inner bay has somewhat steeper bluffs, mapped as partially unstablerecessional outwash glacial sediments. The mudflats estuary of Ludlow Creek occupies thenarrow head of the bay. The south shoreline of the inner bay is basaltic bedrock with severalsmall peninsulas and island rocks. Gently sloping glacial outwash terrain east of the basaltpeninsula supports residential development around to the steep bluffs of Tala Point.

Ludlow Creek has many branches. One tributary draining the basalt slopes southwest joins themain stream at the estuary. The longest branch mapped as perennial is about 4 miles in length,beginning at 200 ft. elevation in the flat-floored southern Beaver (Chimacum) Valley, with aspring and an intermittent tributary draining the 400-500 ft. elevation plain north of Swansonvillethrough a short, steep-sided canyon. Two short tributaries drain high ground west of the valley,with origins above 400 ft. The main stream continues south in the Beaver



(Chimacum) Valley floor farmland, as in Figure 2.48. A large open water pond (mapped asintermittent), is visible on flyover videos north of Beaver Valley community. Beyond the BeaverValley community, the creek turns east toward the bay, just past the intersection of the Bay Road(from Pt. Ludlow) with the Beaver Valley Road. A short intermittent stream joins from the southat this intersection, and a longer stream from the west, mapped as intermittent in its lowersegment, drains Ludlow Lake, Horseshoe Lake (?) and two other unnamed lakes in the 3 00-400ft. highland area. The total length of the Ludlow Creek branches is 10+ miles. Flow as measuredat the USGS staff-gage was 4.96 cfs on 7/22/93 and 2.87 cfs on 8/18/93.

Hood Canal:The entrance to Hood Canal, shown on Figure 2.31 and Figure 2.47, is an imaginary line eastfrom Tala Point, the southeast boundary of Port Ludlow, to Foulweather Bluff at the north end ofthe Kitsap Peninsula. At the entrance Hood Canal is over 300 ft. deep. Farther south at thesouthern end of Toandos Peninsula the Canal ranges to 360 ft. depth (and south of the DQ regionto nearly 600 ft. depth).63

Tala Point to Hood Head and Bywater Bay:A steep 200 ft. bluff of glacial and interglacial sediments at Tala Point, shown in Figure 2.47, issurmounted by gentle rise to 500 ft. to the south, predominantly of Vashon till. [Basalt outcropsto the north and the sharp character of the Point suggest that basalt bedrock is not far below theexposed sediments.] The bluff recedes from the shoreline some 2 miles south, mapped asunstable, and a residential community is located on a low terrace at a basalt bedrock outcrop-

Teal Lake, with no mapped surface outlet, is located on a 400 ft. elevation highland 1 1/2 milessouth of the southern shoreline of Port Ludlow. It may provide some ground-water recharge thatdischarges into several short unnamed streams that drain north into Port Ludlow, and east toHood Canal between Tala Point and Hood Head, as well as into the upper reach of Shine Creek, Imile west.

Hood Head, a 1/2+ mile long island of Vashon till and earlier sediments with a navigation lighton its east side at Point Hannon, is the easternmost feature of the DQ region. [Hood Head is notshown on the pictorial of Figure 2.47, but its position is noted.] An east-west 1/2 mile sandbarconnects it with the shoreline bluffs and encloses a triangular mudflat and marsh. Bywater Bay,shown on Figure 2.47, lies south and west of Hood Head, and between it and the Hood Canalfloating bridge. A sand spit at its northwest provides a small opening into the mudflat. A smallbeach lies just north of the bridge end, at Termination Point.

Squamish Harbor, the Shine Creek area, and South Point:Illustrated on Figure 2.47, Squamish Harbor is a large triangular embayment just south of theHood Canal floating bridge (reportedly the longest floating bridge crossing salt-water). The bayis a marginal basin mostly less than 60 ft. in depth, compared to the 240 ft. depth of the adjacentHood Canal. A shoal of 6 to 30 ft. depth occupies a substantial portion of the bay. The estuary ofShine Creek is a mudflat and marsh at the head of the bay, bisected by the road

________________________63 Burns. 1985



connecting South Point to Highway 104, Highway 104 parallels the south-facing shoreline of thebay, generally 100 to 200 ft. up on the gentle bluff until it descends to the floating bridge. AtSouth Point, 2+ miles south, several long sand spits have formed parallel to the shoreline withopen lagoons behind, open to the north. The Lofall ferry operated from South Point, at the baseof the outer spit, before the Hood Canal bridge was put into service.

Shine Creek is mapped as 2+ miles in length with no tributaries except within the estuary. Itflows south through a shallow valley from its beginning at 150 ft. elevation, between 300-400 ft.elevation highlands 2 miles south of Port Ludlow. The creek crosses under Highway 104 about amile south of its origin, and then parallels the highway eastward to Squamish Harbor. Flowsmeasured at the USGS staff-gage site were 1.23 cfs on 7/22/93 and 0.64 cfs on 8/18/93.

Residential development in the Squamish Harbor/Shine Creek area is currently leading toconcerns about surface and ground-water protection.

Thorndyke Bay and the Thorndyke Creek area:This area is shown on Figure 2.47. The shallow embayment occurs where the Hood Canalchannel turns south at the north end of Toandos Peninsula. A large triangular marsh and lagoonis formed on the south-facing shoreline where the Thorndyke Creek channel and estuaryinterrupts the 200+ ft. bluffs north and south of the bay. A steep-walled trough extendsnorthward, inland, for 3+ miles, with short tributaries draining the eroded side slopes to the mainstream channel. The Thorndyke Creek drainage area is less coherent than that of Tarboo,although highlands separate it from Tarboo on the west and Shine Creek on the northeast, asshown on the relief map of Figure 2.38. A number of wetlands and seasonal lakes are mapped onthe highland areas, but except for Sandy Shore Lake, none has a mapped surface outlet.

The mainstem of Thorndyke Creek begins at Sandy Shore Lake (1/2 mile south of I-Highway104, about 3 miles southeast of the Chimacum/Quilcene West-Valley Road off ramp) and flowsmostly south for 6+ miles. Perennial and intermittent tributaries add another 7+ miles of streamlength. The flows measured at the USGS staff-gage were 6.95 cfs on 7/22/93 and 4.90 cfs on8/18/93.

Toandos Peninsula and Fisherman Harbor:The Toandos Peninsula is illustrated in Figure 2.49. The peninsula is 10+ miles long north tosouth, averages about 2 miles wide, and is typically 400 to 600 ft. above sea level along its topwith steeply sloping bluffs along east and west shorelines. The land and the waters of HoodCanal and Dabob Bay alongside have been sculpted by cordilleran glaciation. Figure 2.50 is aview from the top of the peninsula, above Camp Discovery, looking to the east-southeast acrossDabob Bay and the Bolton Peninsula toward Mt. Walker.

272 Characterization of the DQ Region and Its Water Resources


The surficial geology of the Toandos Peninsula is predominantly glacial till of Vashon age,underlain by other unconsolidated glacial and interglacial sediments. The contact surfacebetween the Vashon lodgement tills and the underlying sediments generally dips to the east[Grimstad & Carson, 198 1 ]. The shoreline bluffs are typically higher and steeper on the westside, with more frequent short, intermittent drainage channels on the east side. Bluff slopes areindicated to be largely unstable.

Fisherman Harbor is a 3/4 mile long estuary, a steep-sided defile in the 200 ft. high bluffs with asandspit at the entrance. It is fed by a short intermittent stream draining the uplands behind.

Salt marshes and open lagoons are found just above Zelatched Point on the west shoreline nearthe end of the peninsula. Silent Lake, located near the 600 ft. elevation at the top of thepeninsula, and about 6 miles north of Coyle on Coyle Road, has no mapped inlet or outlet. Thereare few mapped all-season surface streams on the peninsula; tributaries of Thorndyke Creekdrain east from the northern part, and a 1+ mile stream drains west into Dabob Bay at CampDiscovery.

Habitation is sparse, with minor local agricultural and some residential development, and mostland cover/land use is forest-related. Part of the east side, opposite Bangor, is a US navalreservation. The community of Coyle is located at the head of Fisherman Harbor at the extremesouthern end of the peninsula. Coyle Road, the major improved road, generally traverses the highground down the peninsula’s center. A spur road to Hazel Point serves some development on thesoutheast shore. Camp Harmony, about 3 miles north of Zelatched Point on the west shoreline,and Camp Discovery, another four miles north, have development along the shoreline.

Dabob Bay and Tarboo Bay:Illustrated on Figure 2.49, Dabob Bay is the largest and deepest marine embayment within theDQ region. It extends 12+ miles along the west shoreline of Toandos Peninsula, and ranges from1+ to 3+ miles in width. Toward the south end of the Toandos it exceeds 600 ft. depth, andcontinues over 300 ft. depth well up beside the Bolton Peninsula, 3 miles from its head at TarbooBay. Dabob Bay is considered as the extension of the deep glacial scour that created the mainchannel of Hood Canal farther SoUth.64

Tarboo Bay, the estuary of Tarboo Creek, lies at the head of Dabob Bay and is separated from itby several sand spits extending across from the west shore (visible in Figure 2.5 1), and anelongated spit, Long Spit extending north from the west shore of Toandos Peninsula. Thecommunity of Dabob (originally called Tarboo) is situated on the east shore opposite the spits.

The Tarboo Creek area:The primary drainage channel of Tarboo Creek is clearly visible in the relief map of Figure 2.38,as it flows into Dabob Bay from the north. Parts of the watershed are evident in Figures 2.49,2.47, and 2.3 5. The Tarboo Creek flow begins -about 5 miles north of the head of

_______________________64 Burns. 1985.



Tarboo Bay and four miles south of Discovery Bay. The mapped stream begins at about 600 ft.elevation. One branch begins about 1/4 mile from, and perhaps 30 ft. lower than Tarboo Lake,which has no mapped inlet or outlet. The total length of Tarboo Creek and its mapped all- seasontributaries is nearly 14 miles. Flow measurements of the creek at the USGS staff-gage indicated4.43 cfs on 7/23/93 and 2.54 cfs on 8/18/93.

The main stream channel flows in a narrow north-south valley with steep sides rising 300+ ft.,suggesting continuation of the scoured channel of Dabob Bay and the Hood Canal main channel(and perhaps an outwash channel linkage to the West Valley and continuing on up the QuimperPeninsula). The sediments exposed at Tarboo Bay are mapped as Vashon recessional outwash(later than the till deposits of the peninsula surfaces and the pre-Vashon glacial/ interglacialdeposits exposed in the peninsula bluffs). Tertiary marine sandstones are also exposed in theTarboo Bay area and up Tarboo Creek, suggesting that the cordilleran-glacier- carved channelextended down to sedimentary bedrock where Tarboo Creek now flows, although it is muchdeeper farther south at Dabob Bay and Hood Canal where the sedimentary bedrock layer isdeeper or missing.

Bolton Peninsula:The peninsula is evident on Figure 2.49 and in the photo of Figure 2.5 1. The peninsula isessentially a smaller version of the Toandos, with comparable surface elevation, surficialgeology, and bluffs. It is just over I mile wide and extends about 3 1/2 miles south from the headof Quilcene Bay. The east shoreline extends 2+ miles farther up to Tarboo Bay.

Land use and land cover are comparable here to the Toandos peninsula, mostly forest lands, withresidential development along the northeast side of Quilcene Bay. A road across the head of thebay branches, with one road extending down the west side of the peninsula to Fisherman's Point,a recurved spit and lagoon at the southwest comer. The other road extends southeastward on thetop of the peninsula, ending at Lindsays Beach, a sand beach and lagoon at the southeast comer,below a defile in the bluff with a small intermittent stream. A spit and lagoon, Broad Spit, andseveral other small drainage defiles and beach recesses occur up the east shoreline. The bluffs aregenerally mapped as unstable, [Coastal Zone Atlas]. Several short, unnamed, intermittentstreams are mapped as draining to Dabob and Tarboo Bays to the east, and to Quilcene Bay.

Donovan Creek area:This small stream, traceable on Figure 2.49, ends in an estuary at the head of Quilcene Bay. Themapped perennial stream begins about 2.5 miles north, at an elevation of 400 ft. Severalintermittent tributaries are mapped that add an additional 2+ miles, and one of these beginsnear small Rice Lake that has no mapped surface outlet. The Donovan Creek drainage is smalland less well defined than Tarboo to the east or the Little Quilcene drainages to the west. Thestaff-gage flow measurements by USGS showed 0.73 cfs on 7/23/93 and 0. 1 cfs on 8/18/93.

Quileene Bay and Quileene Rivers estuaries:Figure 2.27 [presented earlier, in the discussion of the Big Quilcene River watershed] illustratesthe area, as does Figure 2.49. Quilcene Bay extends about 3 1/2 miles south from its head to thesouth end of Bolton Peninsula at Fisherman's Point and is typically about 3/4 mile



wide. The north half of the bay is very shallow, comprising the estuaries of the Big Quilcene andLittle Quilcene rivers and Donovan Creek; halfway down the bay, out from the Quilcene BoatHaven the depth is less than 20 ft. The lower half of the bay deepens rapidly, reaching near 200ft. at the south end, between the steep east flank of Mt. Walker and the bluffs of BoltonPeninsula, and joining Dabob Bay which reaches 600 ft. depth another mile south.

The delta and estuarine area at the northwest area of Quilcene Bay is apparently a shallow basinof unconsolidated glacial and alluvial sediments mixing the outflows of the three surfacestreams. A geologic cross-section suggests depths of less than 100 ft. to the underlying marinesedimentary and basaltic bedrock.

Coastline south of Quileene:The bluffs of unconsolidated glacial sediments continue for half a mile below the Quilcene BoatHaven. Beyond, to near Whitney Point, the Crescent Formation basalts are exposed in steepbluffs forming the toe of Mt. Walker. These bluffs are all mapped as unstable. At FrenchmanPoint, opposite the end of Bolton Peninsula, a small stream drains the east flank of Mt. Walkerand Devils Lake.

A sand spit encloses a lagoon on the north side of Whitney Point, and low bluffs of glacialsediments continue around to Pulali Point, a 300 ft. high basalt point enclosing Jackson Cove.Glacial sediments form the bluffs extending down the coast to the (indefinite) boundary of theDQ region. As noted earlier, evidence indicates that the Big Quilcene River once flowedsoutheast between Buck Mtn. and Mt. Walker and down the present channel of Spencer

Creek, until an ice-age alpine glacier (earlier than the latest, Fraser, glaciation) deposited aterminal moraine between the mountains, re-routing the Big Quilcene to its present outflow atQuilcene Bay.65

65 Long. 1975.



The Water Resources

In this section we attempt to describe and partially quantify the sources of water for the DQregion for which useful data are available. In the preceding characterization of the variousriver and stream watersheds and the coastal areas we have included, as available,generalized statements about the magnitude of waterflows. In the case of the Quilcenerivers, and of most smaller streams, not enough long-term gaging has been done in the pastto provide data for a meaningful historical description or analysis of variations. Thatsituation is being partially overcome by the provision of additional gage sites and short-term gaging by the USGS as part of the DQ project, and by ongoing interagencyassessments- Hopefully, gaging of those locations will continue into the future through acombination of volunteer and funded efforts. Some insights into the historical behavior ofthose rivers lacking long-term instrumental data can be attained by estimating past flowpatterns through correlations with weather and other river-flow data for the generalvicinity. The USFS-WDNR analysis of the Big Quilcene River watershed includes attemptingsuch an analysis for the Big Quilcene River.66 Wennekins led a DQ field tour focusing onground-water topics in the region with an extensive information packet.67

In the material that follows in this section we have three objectives:

• To characterize the present-day climate and weather patterns insofar as they identify theamount and distribution of water available to the DQ region.

• To characterize the flows and their variation for the Dungeness River, the largest surfacewater stream of the region, and the only one for which long-term patterns can beanalyzed.

• To explore ground-water sources, their availability and adequacy, and their interactionwith surface waters. Again, our characterization is necessarily limited for the most part tothe Sequim-Dungeness peninsula area of Clallarn County. For this sub-area of the DQregion, a number of past and ongoing studies have provided useful data.

For the Jefferson County sub-areas, the prior ground-water study data are principally limited toone major overview. On-going investigations separate from the DQ project (by Ecologyregarding sea-water intrusion, and by Jefferson County PUD regarding ground-water availabilityfor the east-county areas), will furnish information in the near future. A computerized inventorydatabase of east Jefferson County water wells initiated as part of the DQ project provides data forlater analyses of ground-water resources.

___________________66 Stoddard, R. Personal communication. June 1994.67 Wennekins. M.P. DO field trip and accompanying briefing notes. Fall 1992.



Present climate and weather patterns

Everyone "knows" that the Northwest is a rainy, wet place. Lots of us realize also that we live in,or near to, a "rainshadow. " Forty airline miles from a world-famous rain forest we experiencedry summers and desert-like conditions .... How do these conflicting circumstances affect ourwater resource?

First, in the mid-latitudes, (the DQ region is centered about 48 degrees north), the prevailingwind flow is from the west. This pattern of air masses and weather phenomena moving fromwest to east is common for much of middle North America. Our location on the west coastexposes us to marine air masses that have been conditioned for extended periods over openocean. The oceans provide a "flywheel effect" on climate, providing relatively warmer, moremoist air masses in winter, and cooler air in summer than air masses moving over continentalareas. Thus, irrespective of other factors, we will get more precipitation and less seasonalvariation in temperatures than eastern Washington. This translates directly into more waterarriving and less evaporation, for a fundamentally wet climate here.

Geographical variation in precipitation:Most of the precipitation for the DQ area comes from weather systems moving across theOlympic Peninsula from the Pacific Ocean. The annual precipitation increases with latitudealong the coast (Aberdeen gets more than Astoria, Quillayute more yet, and the west coast ofVancouver Island and northern BC still more). The weather systems moving onto land begin tolose their moisture as precipitation; as the air mass is forced up over rising mountain terrain it iscooled and loses still more moisture. The result is lessened annual precipitation inland, (Olympiaand Shelton get less than Aberdeen) and greatly reduced precipitation in the rainshadow of theOlympic mountains, (Sequim only gets 20% of that at Quillayute or Aberdeen). Quilcene and thesoutheastern Jefferson County peninsulas have less rainshadow effect, with storm circulationaround the south side of the mountains; likewise Elwha ranger station gets circulation around thenorth side of the mountains. Both get about three times as much precipitation as Sequim and PortTownsend.

The graphs in Figure 2.53 show annual precipitation over a many-year period for severalreporting stations. The graphs illustrate that the amount of annual precipitation differs withlocation, and that all locations tend to change together from year to year since all are from thesame weather systems off the Pacific Ocean. The map of precipitation contours shown in Figure2.54 depicts average annual precipitation for locations in the DQ region. [Note: The contourswere constructed three decades back, using data for the prior 30 years and extrapolations for thehigh-elevation terrain where recorded data were lacking. New isohyetal maps are being prepared,but measured data are still lacking for much of the high-elevation terrain. ]

Estimation of water source from precipitation for hydrologic subdivisions of the DQregion:

The map and chart of Figure 2.55 show estimated precipitation, based on the isohyetal contoursthat Figure 2.54 illustrates, for crudely-approximated hydrologic units of the DQ region. Thegross estimates are primarily useful to show the non-uniformity of geographic



distribution of water source, and the water-transport function of the mountain rivers and streams.These estimates of (average) annual precipitation are only an indication of the gross amount.They do not attempt to account for variations in interception and in transpiration by vegetation,evaporation from surfaces, sublimation from snowpack, surface runoff, soil moisture capacity,infiltration and ground-water recharge, and hydraulic continuity between surface and groundwaters.

Seasonal variation in precipitation:Because of the tilt in the earth's axis of rotation as it annually orbits around the sun we are angledaway from the sun's rays in the winter. As a rough approximation, the boundary between polarand tropical air is over southern Canada in summer, but moves toward southern United States inwinter. Thus we see storm tracks across the US Pacific Coast in the winter, moving up to BritishColumbia and Alaska in summer months, and we experience wet, stormy winters and relativelydry summers.67 The graphs of Figure 2.56 illustrate this seasonal effect which is generally trueacross the Peninsula, irrespective of the amount of precipitation.

Snowpack:Inasmuch as the precipitation in the DQ region occurs largely in the winter season, and tends tobe greater in high-elevation areas than lowlands, much accumulates as snowpack that contributesto spring and summer runoff. The snowpack is normally substantial enough for measurement atDQ region monitoring sites from January through April or May. As Figure 2.57 illustrates, theannual snowpack at the Deer Park site used in forecasting Dungeness River flows has showndeclines in recent years, apparently related to climate fluctuations.

Weather pattern and climate changes:We discussed earlier the major climate changes accompanying the ice ages and the transition tothe present climate we know. People tend to think of climate as stable and unchanging, or aschanging in a simply-defined way ... as toward another ice age or toward global warming. Theemerging understanding is that global climate is an incredibly complex dynamic system in which"everything is interconnected with everything else." The climate and weather patterns of a smallregion of the planet are affected by slowly changing conditions and catastrophic events (volcaniceruptions, for example) occurring elsewhere on the land, in the atmosphere and in the oceans,and even externally with changes in our sun.

We can observe changes in weather patterns that appear to persist over periods of time -- therecord of snowpack at Deer Park as an example, or regional droughts, -- talk casually about"trends" or even about "cycles". But for purposes of describing the impact of weather andclimate on the water resources of the DQ region, we should at this time recognize that we'redealing with "fluctuations" in a dynamic system, and not with documented "trends" or "cycles."68

With that caution, we can still learn much of importance by studying these fluctuations asevidence of the variation implicit in our water resource.

Figure 2.58 illustrates the extent of fluctuation observable in our records of weather as it

__________________________67 Neiburger, M., Edinger, J.G., and Bonner, W.D. Understanding our Atmospheric Environment. 1982.68 Burroughs, W.J. Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary? 1992.



affects water resources. A simple averaging of the last 45+ years of precipitation records at PortAngeles (available from the Soil Conservation Service on-line database) suggests that averagePort Angeles precipitation is 25 inches per year. But data from other research (by Brubaker at theUniv. of Washington69) that extended the available precipitation record back to 1878 indicates,as shown on the graph,70 that the late 1800's were probably "wetter" than the time since, and thatsignificant "dry" fluctuations were experienced in the 1920's and again in the 1940's.

Research on the El Nino phenomenon is improving scientific understanding of the interactionbetween ocean and atmosphere processes, and is identifying a coupling between the tropicalphenomena and weather patterns in northern latitudes. These processes may be an importantdeterminant of our intermediate-term fluctuations between drought and flood, as well as a factorin food-supply for the migrating salmonidS.71

Consideration of temperature patterns:No serious examination of temperature patterns and their variation with geography, and overtime is included in this characterization. Clearly, variations in average and extreme temperaturesover time have important effects, on the development and persistence of mountain snowpacks,for example. The available instrumental data for higher-elevation portions of the region are notadequate for any detailed inspection at this time.

Air quality:Another concern with the environment of the DQ region that has relevance to water resources ispollution of the lower atmosphere. Two sorts of water-resource impacts are obvious: directintroduction of air-borne contaminants into the surface waters via precipitation [acid rain andfog, for example]; and long-term damage to the forest and other plant resources that areimportant to maintain the water resource [as is happening in the mountain forests downwind ofurban southern California]. We are spared many of the air-pollution problems that plague otherregions: our prevailing air flows are from the west, from ocean and sparsely developed land; wemostly avoid the vehicle-emission pollutants of crowded metropolitan areas; and we are notlikely to get refineries or other major sources of air-quality degradation. We do have paper mills,slash bums, trash disposal by burning, and a few other pollutant potentials, and a heavy relianceon wood-burning for domestic heating. The Olympic National Park, in keeping with itsdesignation as a World Heritage Site and Biosphere Preserve, maintains an active air-qualitysurveillance that can help in monitoring DQ region conditions.

_________________________69 Brubaker, L., Univ. of Washington. Monthly precipitation for periods back to the 1870's for Port Angeles and

Port Townsend. (provided by Schreiner, E, of Olympic National Park).70 Both Port Angeles and Port Townsend data are available from the 1870's, but the Port Angeles data is

illustrated because it is a more complete record, and also because it is probably more relevant to precipitationin the upper (mountain) Dungeness watershed than data from Port Townsend. A complete daily precipitationrecord from 1900 for Olga on Orcas Island also shows the 1920's and 1940's periods clearly.

71 Diaz, H.F., and Markgraf, V. Editors. El Nino: Historical and Paleoclimatic Aspects of the SouthernOscillation. 1992.



Surface Waters

River flows in the Dungeness / Gray Wolf River system:The Dungeness is the largest river system in the DQ region. Fortunately, it is also the river forwhich extensive flow data are available. It was gaged for a short period (October 1898 throughDecember 1902) 1 mile above the mouth,72 then from June 1923 through September 1930 at RM11.3, and from June 1937 to the present at the RM 11.8 site.73 The gage location is above alldiversions and below all tributaries except Canyon Creek, Bear Creek, Hurd Creek, and MatriottiCreek. A second gage was installed in late 1993 at the Railroad Bridge site at RM 5.65.

Figure 2.59 shows yearly average flows for the water years 1924-30 and 1938-93. Note that thehighest years are over 2 1/2 times as large as the lowest years. The average flow, computed overthe water-years of the gage record, is 379 cfs, corresponding to an annual discharge volume of274,000 acre feet.

Figure 2.60 shows the average flows by month, averaged over 60 years. Note the two peaks inflow for an average year, showing winter storm flows and spring/summer runoff. The “average”picture is somewhat misleading, however. The winter storm flows are less consistent than themajor peaks of spring runoff, and even these vary considerably from year to year. Figure 2.61 isa 3-D representation of flows over the 60-year period, depicting the average flows by month foreach year. Here the erratic nature of winter storm flow occurrence is clear, and also the absenceof major spring/summer runoff in some years.

Estimated flows from subwatersheds:An analysis of the upper watershed of the Dungeness system by Amerman & Orsborn74

estimated the contributions of the various sub-basins above the RM 11. 8 gage, as shown in thetable that follows. The allocations between Dungeness headwaters and Royal Creek are from anestimate in Wood's trail guide.75 [Wood, 1984] The average annual flow estimates in cfs[adjusted slightly here to the 379 cfs long-term average quoted above] are tabulated here:

________________________72 USGS Water Supply Paper 1316. Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States Through

September 1950. Data provided by J. Lichatowich.73 The data, computer files of daily mean flows for the complete period of USGS gaging from 1923 to the present

have been obtained from three sources: The "CFS" on-line computer database system maintained by theUSDA Soil Conservation Service, USGS[Water Resources Division, and Ecology Southwest RegionalOffice/Water Resources.

74 Amerman, K.S., and Orsborn, IF An Analysis of Streamflows on the Olympic Peninsula. 1987. 71 Wood.R.L. 1984.



Segment Increment Cumulative cfsDungeness above RM 25 54 54Royal Creek 53 107Copper & Silver Creeks 23 130Dungeness to RM 19 (incl. Sleepy Hollow Bungalow, Cougar, Skookum Creeks 13 143Gold Creek 13 156Dungeness to the Forks (incl. unnamed strewn on left bank, Eddy Creek) 13 169 169Gray Wolf at Three Forks (incl.Cameron, Grand Creeks) 159 159Gray Wolf to the Dungeness (incl. Slab Camp, Slide, Divide, and unnamed creeks) 30 189 358Dungeness from the Forks to the RM 11.8 gage (incl. Caraco & unnamed creeks) 21 21 379

As noted by Amerman and Orsborn, the distribution of these incremental sub-flows variesthroughout the year with snowpack, melt, runoff and infiltration, and with localized stormprecipitation.

There are several surface tributaries that flow into the Dungeness River below the gage at rivermile 11. 8.77 The most significant of these is Canyon Creek, entering near the Hatchery withoccasional flow measurements as large as 25 cfs, but typically in the 2 to 8 cfs range. Bear Creekhas only small flows recorded. Hurd Creek measurements tend to range from 2 to 7 cfs, andprobably reflect both irrigation tailwater and hatchery discharges of well-water. Occasionalmeasurements of Matriotti Creek include values as high as 20 cfs in 1952 and 1979, and valuesof 5 to 10 cfs frequently in late 1980's and early 1990's. No measurements of the effects ofchannel modifications of Matriotti, including the recent restoration and re-meandering project,are available for this report.

Diversions of flow from the river, at multiple locations below the gage at RM IL 8, andespecially the character of the irrigation diversion system, are discussed in the last sectionof this chapter, Human Habitation: Impacts from human settlement and interventions.

Variation in Dungeness flows from year to year:The variability of flows is a major problem in the Dungeness River. There is relatively littlestorage in the upper watershed, so that current-year precipitation directly controls runoff. Theriver is steep, so that large storm flows have major channel-instability impacts. And therainshadow location exacerbates late-summer low-flow situations. Figure 2.62 shows graphs ofdaily flows for two consecutive water years, 1976 and 1977, highlighting the problem ofvariability of flows. In 1976 many winter storm flows occurred, followed by substantialspring/summer runoff. Average flow for the water year was 487 cfs, for a total volume of____________________77 Data on occasional flow measurements are reported by USGS and by Ecology.



354,000 acre-ft [about 130% of average]. In 1977 there were essentially no winter storm flows,and reduced spring runoff. Average flow for the water year was 197 cfs, for a total water volumeof 142,700 acre-ft [only 50% of average].78

The black lower graph lines in Figure 2.62 show a very crude generalized estimate of bedloadmovement corresponding to the daily flows.79 The implication is that the river channel was veryunstable in water year 1976 with brief periods of high-magnitude bedload transport during thewinter storm events, and significant transport during the relatively sustained high flows of thespring/summer runoff. In contrast, low bedload transport would not have significantly changedthe river channel in water year 1977.

Graphs of daily average flows for water year 1993 and the first 9 months of water year 1994, asmeasured at the RM 11. 8 gage, are illustrated in Figure 2.63. These graphs are important forperspective, as many DQ participants have focused on the state of the river in the period fromOctober 1992 to the present. In particular, the high-flow event of December 1993 resulted insubstantial bedload transport and channel change in the river.

Analysis of variation in the annual river flows:Although it is not productive to search for climate change indications or weather cycles in thedata for the Peninsula or the Dungeness watershed, some attention to year-to-year and multi-year fluctuations is instructive. Figure 2.64 illustrates some analysis of Dungeness flow data80

from the RM 11. 8 gage. The open circle points on the fine graph shows annual mean flow bywater year for the 60+ years of gage data. The fines connecting the points emphasize the flowvariations. Drought periods in the late 1920's and again in the mid 1940's are evident, with low-average-flow values not seen again until 1977.

One aspect of interest is the wide year-to-year fluctuation. Burroughs notes8l that one "weathercycle" that is evident in many kinds of weather data series is a cyclical pattern of 2+ yearsperiod, referred to as the quasi-biennial oscillation. This kind of oscillatory pattern is evident inthe annual river flow data of Figure 2.64. It is also apparent in the precipitation data of Figures2.53, 2.57, and 2.58, and raises intriguing questions about a possible relationship to the life-history cycles of salmonids in northwest rivers.82

______________________________78 See footnote 10.79 The function used for the bedload transport was an approximation extrapolated from the 1987 aggradation

study report of Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., with limitations stated in the previously-footnoted DQTechnical Note.

80 Clark, W. and V. Unpublished DQ Technical Note: Notes on Dungeness River System ... Flows andPrecipitation. July 1993.

81 Burroughs, W.J. 1992.82 Schreiner, E. (Olympic National Park). Personal communication. 1993. Schreiner suggested the Burroughs

book, and noted the widespread occurrence of the 2+ year periodicity in weather data, and the intriguing near-similarity with the life history cycles of the salmonids in northwest rivers.



A second aspect of interest illustrated in Figure 2.64 is the suggestion of longer-term trends inthese river-flow data. A 25% exponential-smoothing trendline83 fitted to the data is shown as abold solid line that filters out most of the short-term oscillation. This smoothed fine appears tohave trended downward for almost 40 years, as suggested by the bold dashed straight line drawnthrough it. The basis for this long-term fluctuation remains unclear, but it is noteworthy that therecords of mountain snowpack also show decline over this period. Crude estimates of annualbedload transport also show a similar downward trend over the period, althoughbedload transport is more directly influenced by high peak flows (storm events and spring-summer runoff) than by overall annual flow volumes.

The frequency of high-flow events, most often associated with winter storms, appears to havedeclined somewhat over the past 20-30 years, as indicated in the lower graph of Figure 2.64. Adecline in recorded winter snowpacks has also occurred over the past 30-plus years, which wouldhave more bearing on the magnitude of spring/summer river flows. The timing and depth ofwinter snowpack accumulations may also be important, along with temperature, wind, and othercharacteristics of storms, in "rain-on-snow" high-flow events associated with winter and springstorms.

Useful Summary Information for Dungeness River flows:Figure 2.65 presents a table of flow data summarized from the USGS records from the gage atRM 11.8. The values are mean flows in cfs for half-month periods.84 The data presented this wayhave been useful in discussions of appropriate allocation of flows among competing uses. Thehalf-month periods represent a practical compromise. They provide more meaningfulinformation about rapid seasonal changes in flow than the usual full-month statistics, whileretaining comparability with the monthly historical data. Weekly periods would be moredesirable for monitoring and management of diversion practices, but are difficult to reconcilewith the monthly statistics.

Dungeness River flows on the Sequim-Dungeness peninsula:Below the USGS gage the river flow situation becomes much more complex due to irrigationdiversions and hydraulic continuity between ground water and surface waters (both river andirrigation ditches). The USGS (Drost) study in 1978-1980 [discussed below, in theHydrogeology and Ground-water section] provided some information on river flows anddiversions during that period, and the model studies provided insight into interactions betweenground and surface waters. The situation is not yet well understood, and is part of the focus forproposed future water resource studies that have been scoped by USGS as a part of the DQproject effort.

________________________-83 Exponential smoothing is a variety of moving average for trend-following that successively de-emphasizes the

contribution of older data points to the trend line. In the 25% trend, each new trend value is influenced 25% bythe latest data point and 75% by the prior period's trend value.

84 The data in the table are simple averages (arithmetic means) of the daily mean flows as reported by USGS. The"early" first half-month periods are considered as days I - 15 of each month, and the "late" periods as theremainder. Thus the number of days averaged into the late periods varies from month to month. Thearrangement of data and summaries at the bottom of the table considers the years through water-year 1992 asthe historical base record, and displays the data for water years 1993 and 1994 (to date) as "current"information, accumulating during the DQ project discussions.



Hydrogeology and Ground Water

Various ground-water regimes in the DQ region: Fundamentally different ground- waterconditions occur in different parts of the DQ region. Four reasonably distinct circumstancesare described here, as existing in the DQ region, and examples are discussed for each.

In major river basins:Past research studies in the Dungeness system have shown that there is a substantial degree ofcontinuity between surface and ground waters. At some locations leakage from surface watersinfiltrates to recharge surrounding ground waters, while in others ground waters discharge tosupplement the surface bodies, depending on hydraulic gradients, permeabilities, discontinuitiesin lithology, etc. The patterns of continuity and water flow can be very complex when the basinboundaries are convoluted, and when the subsurface strata are non-uniform.

In lowland areas adjacent to mountain foothills:The ground waters of the coastal areas where most people live are recharged both from thefoothill slopes and from direct precipitation on the uplands and lowlands. There is typicallysurface runoff from precipitation (especially storm events) in the small, often intermittent,streams of the hillsides, but also infiltration on the slopes leading to shallow subsurface flowsand deeper recharge. Precipitation tends to be greater on the foothill areas than in the valleys.hillside vegetation and the typically deeper and more porous soils may enhance the infiltration ofprecipitation.

In lowland plains remote from mountain rivers or foothills:In plains areas remote from high-elevation terrain the infiltration and recharge from localprecipitation is the principal source of ground waters, at least in unconfined and shallowerconfined aquifers.

In proximity to tidewater shorelines:In near-shoreline areas the ground waters near the diffusion zone between fresh and seawatermay produce water with unacceptable chloride levels. Construction and pumping of wells nearthe diffusion zone may increase penetration of the seawater. Low-productivity aquifers inshoreline areas characterized by near-surface bedrock may be particularly prone to seawaterintrusion from excessive pumping.

Hydrogeology of the lower watershed -- the Sequim-Dungeness area

As indicated earlier in the geology discussion, the lower watershed of the Dungeness riversystem is a broad coastal plain/peninsula overlying the oceanic-basalt and marine sedimentarybedrock formations that dip down to the north from their foothills exposures. The lowerwatershed has large areas of lowlands remote from the foothills and the river channel, thatbenefit from the amount of water flow in the mountain-river watershed, and the steep gradient ofground waters, as evidenced by emergent streams and wetlands fed by ground-water discharge.The "independent" streams east of the Dungeness: Meadowbrook, Cooper, Cassalery and Gierincreeks are examples of this phenomena.



The generalized geologic section from the foothills to the Strait shown in Figure 2.66 suggests alayer-cake of unconsolidated sediments, dipping gently northward to the saltwaters, andconsisting of alternating water-holding aquifer formations, and more-or-less impermeableconfining layers. If the Sequim-Dungeness peninsula were simply a creation of the river, theresult would be sediments carried out of the mountains and deposited as fan and delta toward thestrait from the edge of the foothills. If the river had exhibited fluctuating flows, storm floods, anddrainage of alpine glaciers in the high mountains, then the deposits would have layers of varyingcomposition, some good as water-holding aquifers and others less permeable as confining layers.This kind of fan and delta formation is common in lower reaches of temperate-zone rivers.

But, the reality is apparently more complex than the single generalized section suggests. Anadditional cross-section, west to east across the area, illustrated in Figure 2.67 showsconsiderable variability and probable discontinuities in the aquifers and confining layers. Thesamples obtained during well-drilling do not come neatly labeled as to their geologic history andsource, but these variations and discontinuities are understandable if we consider both the well-log lithology evidence and the larger geologic history of the entire region.

Discussions and field explorations during the course of several years of concentrated attention bythe Clallam County water-project committee members, DQ technical committee subgroups, andindividual investigations have brought a general awareness that the Sequim-Dungeness peninsulaground-water circumstance is unusually complex. Each one of the cordilleran ice sheets fromBritish Columbia, advancing across the San Juan Islands and the Strait, and down the PugetLowlands trough, would have approached the Dungeness river basin almost head- on, riding upover the pre-existing land surfaces, over the foothills and up the river valley and canyon into themiddle reaches of the river system, see Figure 2.3 early in the chapter.

Advance outflows likely created ephemeral lakes and streams at the foothills ahead of the icefront. As ice sheets moved over the land they likely scoured out pre-existing land forms in someplaces and simply rode over them in others, lubricated by and depositing a layer of lodgement till[perhaps resembling still-plastic concrete] consisting of saturated silts and clays with poorlysorted sands, gravels and larger rocks. The lodgement till, consolidated under the pressure of upto a mile-thick ice sheet, has remained as largely impermeable confining layers often describedas hardpan.

Meanwhile, the river, its flow probably both diminished and augmented at different times as aresult of alpine glaciers at higher elevations, and dammed by the advancing ice sheet, wasponding in ephemeral glacial lakes. These glacial lakes were also fed by the icy melt waters fromthe Puget-lobe of the cordilleran ice sheet, and probably by increased precipitation [resultingfrom the cool, humid glacial climate] that drained off mountains and glacier surfaces. Sedimentscarried into the quiescent lakes formed clay and silt lake bed deposits.

As the glacial ice-sheets receded (more properly, wasted away), the melt waters would have beenenormous. The amount of melt water from jus *t the ice overlying the Dungeness river systemwatershed and the dammed glacial lakes would have been of the order of 1000 years of currentannual river flow. And outwash from the main Puget Lobe of the ice sheet to the east is believedto have flowed north and northwest after the "Leland Spillway" was unplugged. It



seems plausible that Texas Valley and Palo Alto/Jimmycomelately were temporary drainageoutlets for the impounded glacial lakes while the Dungeness channel was still blocked by the icesheet. Various channels may have formed, washed out, and re-formed, perhaps both eastwardand westward, while the ice sheet still covered the lower portion of the river channel and theglacial melt waters were voluminous.

The outwash flow patterns would have been erratic, but probably trending northwest, to openingtidal waters. The recessional outwash would have left well-sorted sand and gravel deposits, aswell as poorly sorted mud flows, on the emerging land surfaces and would have carried greatamounts of finer sediments in suspension into open tidal waters. 85 Possible evidence of west ornorthwest flows into ephemeral glacial outflow lakes in forest-bed deposits is visible in the bluffsnear Green Point. Some of the outflows were under, or in contact with, the wasting ice sheet,resulting in deposits of the type known as eskers and kame terraces. The sinuous ridges of well-sorted sands and gravels such as those of the Potholes/Dungeness Estates and Hogback Roadcould be of such origin.

There is evidence that the late stage of recession of the latest ice-sheet, the Vashon, wascatastrophic, with the flotation and breakup of the ice sheet over the Strait resulting in floatingbergs that deposited drift over large areas. The deposits are the Everson Drift that is the surface"cliff-forming" layer of glacial deposit in large areas atop the bluffs.116

The land surfaces we see are left from the latest ice sheet, only 12,000 years ago, and from riverand surface runoff since. The shapes of the land forms represent the cumulative buildup overtime, however, and hide from view the various kinds of deposits from earlier glaciations thatcontribute to the aquifers and confining layers that define our ground waters. A glimpse of earlierdeposits and their ages is provided by studies of the stratification in the bluffs, as described in thesection on geology and Figure 2.4, earlier in the chapter.

The important point here, is that as we talk about water-table (unconfined) and confined aquifers,and about hydraulic continuity between surface waters and ground waters, we have much tolearn about the natural and imposed patterns of subsurface water flows of the Sequim-Dungeness area and about the limits of its ground water resources. The same can be said for theJefferson County side of the DQ project area.

Analyses of lower-watershed ground-water resources:Our present knowledge about the ground waters of the Sequim-Dungeness area comes mostlyfrom the work and well-drilling reports of the drillers working in the area, and from four researchefforts: that of Noble for the Washington Division of Water Resources in 1960; that of Drost andco-workers of the US Geological Survey (in collaboration with the Washington

85 Analyses of underwater surface deposits in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the continental slope and submarinecanyons offshore of the Olympic Peninsula show substantial thicknesses of Holocene (post- Vashon)sediments carried out from Puget Sound freshwater rivers, of which the Dungeness has been one contributor.See Wagner, H.C., et al, Continental Shelf and Upper Continental Slope of Coastal Washington, 1986; andWagner, H.C., and Tomson, J.H., Offshore Geology of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington and BritishColumbia, 1987.

86 Easterbrook. Personal communication. 1992.



Department of Ecology and Clallarn County Departments of Health and Public Works) in 1978-1980; repeated monitoring of selected wells by Ecology, Southwest Regional Office, and an on-going ground-water study by Ann Soule, Clallarn County ground-water specialist.The Noble study:

John Noble initiated a three-month reconnaissance of geology and ground water with verylimited prior research from which to work. 87 His study was initiated, in part, to explore thepotential for additional irrigation water sources. The conclusion stated in 1960, in part:

The… area has a potential [ground] water supply that will allow liberal and inexpensiveirrigation wherever required and yet not deplete the natural water resources. The majorityof the present irrigation supply is diverted from the Dungeness River, but the State FisheriesDepartment has requested that no additional water be diverted so the river can be preservedas a spawning area. Under present conditions, additional irrigation supplies are desirableas there is much land near the extremes of the ditches not receiving a full supply of water,yet these lands are fully assessed for water. Additional supplies may be obtained in twoways: (1) A more efficient distribution system ... [reference to the 1950-51 Bureau ofReclamation study -- see Surface Waters: Diversion of Natural Flows, above] ... and (2)supplementing the existing supply by the use of large quantities of ground water whichcould be pumped into existing ditches or used to irrigate directly from the wells . ... Also,[the irrigation districts and ditch companies] can transport water from good ground-waterareas to the areas where neither present ditch supplies nor potential ground-water suppliesare available. In locating new well sites, water-logged lands with wells of large infiltrationarea should be seriously considered. … .

The USGS Drost study:This major effort had several aims: (1) a general assessment of the water resources of the countyand identification of present and potential water-resource problems and contamination indeveloped areas;88 and (2) an in-depth analyses of the effects of irrigation on ground-waterrecharge in the Sequim-Dungeness peninsula.89 Whereas the 1960 Noble study was responsiveto an expanding farm irrigation demand, the 1978-80 Drost studies were reflecting a trend awayfrom irrigated farming and toward increasing residential development. The summary from thegeneral study states, in part:

The water resources of the county have undergone (as of 1980) relatively little development. ... Adequate ground water for individual domestic use is available in almost all of thedeveloped areas. In some locations, where thin unconsolidated deposits overlie bedrock(primarily shales), attempts to install individual domestic wells have been unsuccessful...two or three wells drilled before an adequate yield was obtained... in saturated fractures inthe bedrock ... southeast of Port Angeles and 3-4 miles inland... and the southwest shorelineof Sequim Bay. Very few wells have

____________________________87 Noble, 1 1960.88 Drost, B.W., (USGS). 1986.89 Drost, B.W., (USGS). 1983



been drilled in the mountainous interior of the study area, but the available data suggestthat there may be large areas of inadequate ground-water to supply even single domesticneeds . ... .

A few problems of poor ground-water quality are known ... the most serious is salty(chloride concentrations in excess of 250 mg1L) ground water in ... the shoreline from thesouthwest side of Sequim Bay to the northeast part of the Miller Peninsula (particularly theDiamond Point area) ... encountered in wells that have been drilled into the freshwater-saltwater zone of diffusion. Saltwater intrusion produced by pumping has apparently notbeen a problem ... [but] pumping of ground water from the freshwater-saltwater zone ofdiffusion ... could lead to increased deterioration of water quality in existing wells andenlargement of the problem areas . ... A detailed ground-water study would be needed toassess the potential impact of increased stresses on the ground-water system of the MillerPeninsula.

The USGS (Drost) analyses of irrigation system impact on ground water:The USGS (Drost) studies in the Sequim-Dungeness Peninsula have provided the most detailedavailable assessment of the ground-water resource.90 The summary and conclusions, quoted infull, follow:

1. The digital model described in this report simulated the ground-waterflow system withinthe accuracy of the input data.

2. The model confirms that leakage from the irrigation system is the largest source ofrecharge to the ground-water system. The leakage occurs primarily from the ditchsystem, not from water actually applied to fields.

3. Termination of the irrigation system would lead to lower heads throughout the ground-water system. The ground-water levels in the water-table aquifer could have averagedeclines of about 20feet, and some areas could become completely unsaturated Severalhundred wells could go &y [of I 100+ identified in the area by Drost in 1980].

4. Ground-water quality, as of June 1980, has apparently not been greatly affected by theuse of on-site domestic sewage-disposal systems. The potential for future contaminationcannot be assessed with the data presently available.

Future studies should include the following.

1. Ground water levels and rates of irrigation diversion would need to be monitored inorder to assess the impact of any changes in land use.

2. Flow in the Dungeness River would need to be monitored, at least at the gage and atDungeness. This information would be required to properly interpret any changes

__________________90 Drost, B.W., (USGS). 1983.



observed [in ground water levels and rates of diversion].

3. Water quality would need to be tested periodically and compared with the baseline data(June 1980) presented in this report.

4. If a significant increase in development of the artesian aquifers occurs, the new datacould be used to update the model and test its ability to accurately simulate flow in theseaquifers.

Monitoring by WA Ecology:

Washington Department of Ecology, Southwest Regional Office staff have continued limitedsampling of static water levels and water quality in selected wells from the time of the Droststudy to the present. The data are published for reference, a few years at a time, but no definitiveanalysis of trends in well-water levels has been published.

The current Clallam County ground-water study:A several-year study jointly funded by Ecology and Clallam County has provided considerableawareness and investigation of ground-water issues (partly in conjunction with the non-pointpollution watershed study), contributions to the growth-management planning process, andimportant research findings on nitrate concentrations, seawater intrusion, and contaminantthreats. A computerized well-inventory database has been compiled (in collaboration with theDQ project) and analyses performed to delineate the characteristics of wells and water-use in theSequim-Dungeness area. Current monitoring will provide important information on well staticwater levels to evaluate the impact of fifteen years of continuing development since the Droststudies. A study currently being performed by USGS for the County ground-water study willprovide additional geologic cross-sections of importance for understanding the configurations ofaquifers, confining layers, and presumptions of hydraulic continuity. Assessment of seawaterintrusion into wells in proximity to tidewater shorelines has been done in collaboration with theForbes/CH2M-Hill study for the Jefferson County shorelines of the DQ region.

The Clallam County ground-water study (and concurrent participation in DQ efforts) suggeststhat:

• Ground-water quality is generally good, although nitrate levels have increased in someareas since the 1978-80 study.

• Seawater intrusion must continue to be monitored, especially along the Sequim Bayshoreline, but is not a broadening concern at present.

• Well water levels have not dropped precipitously, although some wells (particularlyshallow ones) have experienced problems, requiring deepening or replacement Changesin some shallow wells are believed to relate to irrigation ditch flows; there is someconcern that. changes in deeper wells may relate to increased pumping of large wells.

• The extent of hydraulic continuity between the river and wells, and between ditches



and wells, is not easy to assess, and is difficult to predict in advance because of thecomplexity and variability of subsurface conditions.

• The continuing high rate of new well construction, worsened by the construction ofmultiple single-use wells in new residential projects, to avoid delays caused by thetime lag in water-right-permitting for community systems, may jeopardize ground-water quality.

Puzzles remain ... irrigators are under pressure to make the irrigation ditch system as efficient aspracticable, both for legally-mandated "efficient use" of the diverted water, and for enhancinginstream flows for fisheries rehabilitation. This implies reduced ditch leakage, identified byDrost over a decade ago as probably leading to reduction in ground-water recharge and potentialimpact on wells, particularly shallow ones in water-table aquifers. And questions about theextent of hydraulic continuity between ground-water wells and the river (and ditches) remainunanswered.

One alternative frequently advanced is construction of deeper wells, in [presumed] deeperconfined aquifers. A number of deep wells in the area perform well, but we know little so farabout the structure and capabilities of deeper aquifers. The Drost study assumed that mostrecharge of deeper aquifers would come from down flow from the aquifers nearer the groundsurface -- in other words, that there were no obvious other sources of recharge.

Ground water in the upper Dungeness River watershed:Much serious discussion, but little empirical evidence has been advanced regarding one possibleadditional source of recharge to deeper aquifers -- water from the upper Dungeness watershedapart from that measured at the RM 11. 8 surface water gage.

Figure 2.55, presented in the discussion of precipitation, showed that the estimated water sourcefrom precipitation was large in the upper watershed. The water that falls as precipitation eitherreturns to the atmosphere as evapotranspiration and snowpack sublimation, enters the surfacewaters as runoff, or infiltrates into the ground as soil moisture and ground- water recharge. Onlyabout 1/2 of the estimated precipitation source is accounted for in the river surface flow at thegage in the foothill "canyon-narrows" that separates upper and lower watersheds. The gagelocation was presumably selected as being in a bedrock-based section of the river to ensure thatthe gage measured the entire flow, but, the structure of bedrock in that area is not well knownbecause of the thick glacial drift left by cordilleran ice sheets, and perhaps also alpine glaciers.

Three conjectural possibilities seem open: 1) the precipitation estimates for the high country areerroneous, and/or the evapotranspiration/sublimation loss is high; 2) some recharge to deeperaquifers occurs through bedrock permeability (fracture and joint systems in the bedrock); or 3)some unknown substantial discontinuities in the bedrock and overlying drifts, faulting, etc.,provides for significant ground-water flows from the upper watershed to deeper aquifers in thelower watershed.

Research proposed by USGS Water Resources Division in their scoping of water budget



studies for the DQ project should be able to provide more satisfactory answers for the questionsthat currently hinder planning with confidence for use of Sequim-Dungeness ground waters.

Miller Peninsula ground water:Ground water in this small peninsula is apparently supplied primarily by recharge fromprecipitation on the limited peninsula surface and the north flanks of the Blyn Mountain mass tothe south. Precipitation is limited in the rainshadow area, evapotranspiration is presumably largefrom substantial sunshine and winds in the strait, and the upper surficial materials arepredominantly glacial tills of low permeability. The peninsula is sparsely populated, and theeastern portion is currently supplied with community-system water from Jefferson County PUD.Concerns about ground-water availability and the prospects of seawater intrusion wereheightened when a large resort was proposed for the north portion of the peninsula. Theconsultant involved in water studies for the resort project reported from geological analyses andwell testing of one or more substantial wells, that adequate water was available in a deeperaquifer, below any currently tapped for use, and that existing sources were not in jeopardy.91

Cancellation of the resort project has left the question unanswered. Current plans to incorporatemuch of the peninsula into a State park may alleviate concern over the quantity of availableground water and the danger to existing well sources.

Ground water in the coastal plain west of the Dungeness basin:

The situation here is somewhat akin to that of the Miller Peninsula. The small streams(McDonald, Siebert, and Bagley) may not have widespread continuity with area ground waters,which are probably mostly supplied by recharge from precipitation on the northwest face of BlueMountain and precipitation on the coastal plain. Construction of adequate wells in the area hasbeen problematic, and part of the area is covered by a community water system of the ClallamCounty PUD. [Note that this water comes, in part, from Port Angeles sources, and is anexception to the general statement of "no water imports from outside the DQ region. "]92

The extensive forest cover of the southern portion of this plain, and the higher annualprecipitation than in the extreme rainshadow areas may partially offset the loss of water throughrunoff over low-permeability glacial tills.

Ground water in the coastal plains and peninsulas of Jefferson County:The Jefferson County areas away from direct continuity with substantial rivers or streams havethree difficulties in obtaining ground-water supplies: 1) primary dependence on recharge fromprecipitation, often in rainshadow zones; 2) highly variable subsurface conditions that makedifficult the delineation of aquifers; and 3) long stretches of coastline with attendant risks ofseawater intrusion.

________________________91 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Cape Discovery Resort: Ground Water Study Summary. June 1991.92 Some residents of the western, Agnew, portion of the region receive their domestic water supply from the

PUD on a system that extends outside of the region toward Port Angeles to the west. It is supplied both bya well within the region and surface water from the Morse Creek water treatment plant outside the region.



A decade-old study of geology and ground-water resources93 concluded that, overall, adequateground-water recharge existed to provide for reasonable growth of water use. The studycautioned, though, that the geologic variability made the search for adequate supplies difficult,and that water quality problems (iron, manganese, nitrates, hydrogen sulfide) were apparent insome areas. The study report noted that seawater intrusion problems had been encountered inscattered shoreline areas, but were not deteriorating.

A study recently completed (in draft submission)94 for Jefferson County PUD #1 providesimportant analyses in detail of existing data, a plan of action for development of new publicground-water supplies, and recommendations for development of more definitive databaseresources and field investigations. The study brings together the available geologicalinformation and presents a series of cross-sections delineating the complex subsurface conditionsas currently known. Analyses of data from existing wells have been used to assess the likelihoodof new discoveries of various capabilities. Recommendations are provided for avoidance ofseawater intrusion problems and interference with existing wells.

The study authors conclude that, based on present information, additional public water suppliesfrom ground water should be achievable, in the range of 20 to 25 million gallons per day[somewhat beyond the present delivery to Port Townsend and the NEU from the OGWS pipelinefrom the Quilcene rivers].

Ground water in areas adjacent to tidewater shorelines:The Forbes/CH2M-Mll assessment of seawater intrusion for the DQ project95 showed thatintrusion is a potentially-serious problem along Jefferson County shorelines, increasing in recentyears with accelerating development. The authors suggest ways to minimize impacts by properchoice of well location and construction, and stress that an adequate on-going monitoringprogram is crucial.

The seawater intrusion problem is particularly critical on Marrowstone Island, aggravated byincreased well construction in recent years, as noted by Forbes et al. Ecology has undertakenan extended study of the Marrowstone seawater intrusion, and a final report is due soon, withrecommendations for control.

A plan of study for the ground and surface water resources of the DQ region:The USGS Water Resources Division has developed a scope of research for addressing gaps ininformation about the water resources. The work, which would emphasize ground-waterresources as a major gap, could be performed as a series of related studies over a five-yearperiod, with interim useful results. Support and funding of the studies needs to be addressed bythe DQ participants. More can be found on this in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

_________________________________________93 Grimstad and Carson. 1981.94 Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. and Pacific Groundwater Group. Eastern Jefferson CountyGroundwater Characterization Study. (Draft) October 1993:95 Forbes, R.B. and CH2Nffbll. Preliminary Assessment of Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Water Wells in EasternClallarn and Eastern Jefferson Counties. October, 1993.



The Animal and Plant Communities

Anadromous fish96

The waters of the northwest are famous for production of the various species of fish that five outtheir life cycles partly in terrestrial fresh water streams, partly in tidal and open sea saltwaters.Five species of Pacific salmon and steelhead and cutthroat trout, all of the salmonid family, areindigenous to the waters of the DQ region. Native stocks of these are known in different riversand smaller streams of the region, and hatcheries have been operated since the early decades ofthis century to supplement the fisheries. The salmonid fisheries, once abundant beyonddescription, are in serious decline in the northwest, and specifically in the DQ region. Researchinto the many factors causing this decline and actions to correct the identified problems aremajor preoccupations of Federal, Tribal, State and local agencies, volunteer fisheries supportgroups, and commercial and sport fishing interests.

Salmonid Resources:

Game Fish Found in the DQ Region

Name Scientific NameChinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum, 1792)Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum, 1792)Pink Salmon Oncorhynchusgorbuscha (Walbaum, 1792) CohoSalmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum, 1792)Cutthroat trout* Oncorhynchus clarki (Richardson, 1836)Rainbow trout* Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792)Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley, 1858)Dolly Varden* Salvelinus malma (Walbaum, 1792)* Includes both freshwater and anadromous forms (i.e., steelhead (rainbow trout)).See Chapter 7, Figures 7.3 and 7.4 for more information on salmonid life histories.

Life History Characteristics of Salmon:Pacific Salmon are anadromous species, migrating as adults from the ocean back to their natalfreshwater streams to spawn. Chinook and coho salmon juveniles rear in fresh water up to oneyear before emigrating to sea. Chum and pink salmon require little to no freshwater rearing,migrating to sea almost immediately upon emerging from the spawning gravel. Development ofsalmon is directly related to temperature, affecting the timing of hatching and emergence fromgravel spawning beds, growth, and migration (route and timing).

____________________________________-96 The sections on Anadromous Fish and on Shellfish and Other Marine Invertebrates have been prepared by

Brad Sele, fisheries manager, Jamestown S’Kallam Tribe, with peer review. A variety of reference materialshave been used by Sele, with special reference to Hart, U., Bulletin 180, Pacific Fishes of Canada. 1973.



At the appropriate time of their respective life history, salmon migrate down their natal streamsand acclimate to saltwater in estuaries and near-shore environments. These marine habitats are animportant transition area for young salmon as they undergo physiological changes to adapt fromfresh water to saltwater. Survival during this extremely vulnerable stage of their early life historyis directly related to the amount and quality of food and shelter available upon entry. Salmoncounter high mortality rates through high fecundity and abundance. However, adverse impactsare more detrimental at low population sizes, when population instability may occur.

Most salmon from Puget Sound migrate north after entering saltwater as juveniles, some rangingas far north as the Gulf of Alaska, and return southwardly along the coasts of Alaska and BritishColumbia. A lesser number of stocks migrate south and return northwardly along the coasts ofnorthern California and Oregon. Exact migration routes vary from year to year and are dependentupon climatic conditions. Salmon have specialized sensors that allow them to return to their natalstream to spawn after spending the majority of their life at sea.

As the adult migration returns to spawn, males dominate the early part of the run, as do the largeror older fish. Eggs per female are positively correlated to size and vary from year to year andspecies to species. Generally, with the exception of pink and coho salmon, adults return at morethan one age over multiple years. This life history trait reduces the likelihood of extinction if forsome catastrophic reason an entire brood year is wiped out, plus it allows for interbreedingbetween brood years, increasing genetic diversity.

Chinook Salmon - Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon. They return primarilyto major rivers in the spring and summer months to spawn. Females bury about 4,800 eggs ingravel redds in late summer and early fall, the eggs hatch in early winter, and fry emerge fromthe gravel in the early spring. Usually, juvenile chinook salmon rear for 3-6 months in freshwaterbefore emigrating to sea, though some stocks remain in freshwater for at least a year. Afterspending 1-6 years at sea, the adults return to their natal river to spawn.

Coho Salmon - Coho salmon spawn in a diversity of habitats, including the headwaters of majorrivers and their associated tributaries, but are more noteworthy for occurring in most anadromousstreams. Freshwater entry begins in early fall as a prelude for spawning from October to January.Females lay between 2,500 and 5,000 eggs, depending upon their size. The resultant fry emergearound April the following spring and remain in freshwater streams for varying periods, usuallyone year. During freshwater rearing, coho fry are territorial in behavior, holding select positionsin the stream and feeding on drifting insects of terrestrial origin or coming downstream fromlakes (Hart, 1973). They usually rear in small streams. Their freshwater survival is dependentupon maintenance of suitable in-stream flows, especially during summer months. Coho salmonsmolt after one year (usually) and emigrate to sea in the spring. They generally spend one andone half years in saltwater before returning as adults to spawn as three-year-olds.

Chum Salmon - Chum salmon frequently spawn near the mouths of rivers and most streams, butare known to migrate up large rivers to spawn in the headwaters and tributaries. Summer chumarrive near their natal streams in late summer and spawn in September and October. Fall chumare the latest of the Pacific salmons to spawn, arriving in October through January, with



spawning occurring from November through early February. Summer runs have fecundities of2,000 to 3,000 eggs per female, while fall chum are slightly larger with fecundities of 3,000 to4,300 eggs per female. Fry emerge from the gravel in the early spring (primarily March andApril) and migrate directly to sea, with little time spent rearing in fresh water. Chum salmonspend 2 to 7 years (usually 3 to 5) at sea before returning to spawn as adults.

Pink Salmon - Pink salmon are the smallest of the Pacific salmon. The State of Washington is atthe southern most range of pink salmon and only odd-year pink salmon are present here. Likechum salmon, they usually spawn near the mouths of rivers and streams, but are known tomigrate up large rivers to spawn. Summer pink salmon (upper Dungeness stock) arrive to spawnin late July and are done by the end of September. Fall pink salmon (lower Dungeness stock) aremore typical, arriving in late August and are done spawning by late October. Fecundities varyfrom 1,500 to 1,900 eggs per female. Fry emerge from the gravel in the spring and migratedirectly to sea. Adults return to spawn in the second summer. The 2-year life cycle of pinksalmon is so invariable that fish running in odd-numbered calendar years are effectively isolatedfrom even-year fish so that there is no gene flow between them. The two cycles need separateconsideration from the points of view of exploitation and conservation (Hart, 1973).

Steelhead Salmon - Steelhead are anadromous rainbow trout. Their preference for ananadromous life cycle versus residency in freshwater is accompanied by morphologicaldifferences and is hereditary. Summer and winter running tendencies of steelhead also appear tobe inherited. Because of genetic characteristics, steelhead are now classified as a salmon, nottrout.

Steelhead spawn in large rivers and their tributaries, and most anadromous streams. Summersteelhead generally enter fresh water from May through October and spawn from Februarythrough April. Winter steelhead enter freshwater as early as December and river entry continuesthrough April. Spawning occurs from February through May. Female steelhead have fecunditiesof about 3,500 to 5,000 eggs. Summer steelhead have a higher fecundity than winter steelhead.After emerging from the gravel in the spring or early summer, steelhead juveniles usually spend2 to 3 years (range of 1-4 years) in freshwater before emigrating to sea. Steelhead also spend 2 to3 years (range of 1-4 years) at sea before returning to spawn. Unlike other salmon species, somesteelhead return to spawn for a second or third time.

Distribution:Salmonid inventories have been conducted on anadromous systems in the DQ region at varioustimes, by multiple agencies, and through differing methodologies. The most recent collation ofthis type of information is summarized in the 1992 Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory(SAS SI) which was jointly developed by the State of Washington and the treaty Tribes. In thenear future, appendices to the 1992 SASSI document will be published containing detailedsummaries of each salmon and steelhead stock in Puget Sound, including the Strait of Juan deFuca and Hood Canal. The appendices will provide an excellent opportunity to obtain stockspecific information for the salmonid resources in the DQ region. Publication of the appendicesis expected in the late summer of 1994.



Salmon are indigenous to the Pacific northwest and generally can be found in any accessibleanadromous stream or river. Actual distribution is species specific, depending upon theirrespective basic life history requirements. As an example, chinook salmon are not as widelydistributed as coho salmon or cutthroat trout because they primarily inhabit larger river systems.The distribution of salmonids today is not a true representation of their historical distribution.Singular events and the cumulative effects of multiple impacts have changed their distributionpatterns over the years. In general, salmonids are not as widely distributed as they once were. Inmany cases the distribution of salmonids today is not well documented. This may seemsurprising considering the inventory assessment surveys that have been done. Nonetheless,information today should not be considered all inclusive.

Salmon are currently distributed in the DQ region as follows:

Chinook Salmon - Morse Creek and the Dungeness River. Hatchery chinook salmon are alsofound in the Little Quilcene and Quilcene rivers.

Coho Salmon - Bagley Creek, Siebert Creek, McDonald Creek, Dungeness River, CassaleryCreek, Gierin Creek, Bell Creek, Johnson Creek, Dean Creek, Jimmycomelately Creek,Contractors Creek, Salmon Creek, Snow Creek, Chimacum Creek, Thorndyke Creek, ShineCreek, Donovan Creek, Little Quilcene River, and Big Quilcene River. Coho salmon areextremely opportunistic and are probably found in many other unnamed streams and creeksduring one or more of their life stages.

Summer Chum Salmon - Jimmycomelately Creek, Snow Creek, Salmon Creek, and ChimacumCreek (this stock may be at, or near extinction), Little Quilcene River, and Big Quilcene River.

Fall Chum Salmon - Bagley Creek, Siebert Creek, McDonald Creek, Dungeness River, BellCreek, Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, Thorndyke Creek, Tarboo Creek, Little Quilcene River,and Big Quilcene River. Fall chum salmon are poorly documented, particularly in the AdmiraltyInlet area, and were undoubtedly more widely distributed in the past.

Pink Salmon - Dungeness River. Like fall chum salmon, pink salmon were undoubtedly morewidely distributed in the past.

Summer Steelhead - Dungeness River.

Winter Steelhead - McDonald Creek, Dungeness River, Jimmycomelately Creek, Snow Creek,Salmon Creek, Chimacum Creek, Thorndyke Creek, Tarboo Creek, Little Quilcene River andBig Quilcene River.

The distribution of resident trout and other fishes is even more poorly documented than that ofsalmon. For the purposes of this report it would be fair to characterize their distribution patternsas similar to that of salmon.

Abundance:Historical references document the bounty of salmon that was produced in Puget Sound and



the Pacific northwest when the non-Indian community arrived. Their numbers seemed endless.Even as late as 1963 the Dungeness River had a pink salmon escapement of over 400,000 fish.Unfortunately, the situation today is much different. Streams that once produced salmon in thetens and hundreds of thousands are struggling to achieve escapements of a few hundred.

Stocks are being petitioned for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Fisheries arebeing restricted to unprecedented levels for reasons of conservation. Whole economies have beendevastated. Recovery of these once abundant salmon resources will be dependent upon prudentmanagement at all levels of impact, as well as restoration of the habitats upon which theydepend.

Not to be overlooked is the cumulative contribution made by many small streams, creeks,sloughs and wetlands to the total abundance of salmon returning each year. These seeminglyinsignificant aquatic communities collectively produce a notable portion of each annual return.They too must be protected and factored into any recovery efforts.

Contributions made by hatchery coho are significant within the DQ region. The magnitude variesfrom year to year depending upon funding and release numbers, strategies, and locations.

Status:Salmon production within the DQ region can generally be described as depressed, belowexpected levels based on available habitat and natural variations in survival rates. This is due to acombination of factors which are described below in more detail. The 1992 Salmon andSteelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) lists 9 of the 40 stocks in the Strait of Juan de Fuca ashealthy, or 22.5%; 14 as depressed, or 35%; 5 as critical, or 12.5%; and 12 as their status beingunknown, or 30%. In Hood Canal, 17 of 36 stocks are listed as healthy, or 47.2%; 11 asdepressed, or 30.6%; 1 as critical, or 2.8%; and 7 as their status being unknown, or 19.4%. Ofnote is the fact that 6 of the 12 critical stocks (50%) listed for the State of Washington are foundin the Dungeness, Discovery Bay, and Quilcene watersheds.

The production trend for salmon has continued to decline since the 1992 inventory, and if asnapshot was taken today it is likely the status of salmon and steelhead stocks in the DQ regionwould be lower than that portrayed above. In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been petitioned by various fisheries interest groups to protect certain salmon and steelheadspecies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This includes, but is not limited to, all cohosalmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest, Dungeness River chinook salmon, Dungeness fallpink salmon (lower river), Discovery Bay summer chum salmon, and Hood Canal summer chumsalmon. What affect an ESA listing of any or all of these stocks would have on the region iscurrently unknown.

The status of individual salmon and steelhead stocks in the DQ region is best described in the1992 SASSI and its forthcoming appendices. Relevant sections of SASSI are referenced later isthis report under the recommendations for east Clallam and Jefferson counties.

Factors Limiting Production:Fish production is affected by both natural and man-induced factors. Salmon have evolved to



account for a wide range of natural impacts. It is only when they encounter extreme or unnaturalconditions that their adaptive processes fail. More information is available on factors limiting thefreshwater production of salmon than those limiting production in saltwater.

Factors with the greatest impact on freshwater production include those that reduce the quality orquantity of their environments. Examples include blockages to migration, extreme climaticconditions, excessive or reduced water flows, unstable stream beds, siltation, pollution, loss offood reserves and shelter, and predation. Activities such as logging, urban growth, andagriculture can have direct affects on fish production if not properly planned and regulated.

The Dungeness River is a good example of how human activities can detrimentally affect fishproduction. Unlike other watersheds in the area, the Dungeness River is located in a rainshadow,and is subject to large irrigation water withdrawals. Historically, the naturally limiting factor forthe Dungeness River may have been its steep gradient in the upper watershed, with spawningrestricted to limited gravel patches. Today, freshwater production is limited by a combination ofhuman impacts resulting from agriculture, urbanization (including flood control) and forestpractices. Five irrigation withdrawals remove as much as 60% of the natural flow during criticallow flow periods (August and September), which happens to coincide with chinook and pinksalmon spawning in the river. Forest practices, urban growth, and clearing land for agriculturehave destabilized the riparian corridor and land base adjacent to the river. The resulting erosionhas caused sediments to be deposited in the river at a rate that exceeds the river's ability totransport them, creating extensive gravel aggradation and channel braiding. These productionbottlenecks compound the low water flow impacts to fish by reducing the water depth, increasingthe water velocity and temperature, and destabilizing the river bedload. An increase in finesediments reduces the quality of spawning habitat by smothering salmon eggs during theirincubation. Flood control measures, such as dikes, funnel the energy of the river into a confinedspace during high water events, subjecting fish and their habitat to extreme conditions. Incombination, these factors adversely impact fish production by impeding both upstream anddownstream migration of anadromous salmonids, reducing the quantity and quality of availablespawning and rearing habitat, and killing incubating salmon eggs in the unstable bedload duringhigh water flows.

Factors limiting saltwater production are not as well understood as those limiting freshwaterproduction. Some of the more obvious examples would be major climatic events (El Nino),pollution from run-off in the nearshore rearing areas, catastrophic events like oil spills, andpredation, including over fishing. Estuaries and other near-shore nursery areas are extremelyimportant to the survival of salmon and steelhead. Any loss of this type of habitat, or reduction inits quality, will undoubtedly affect fish production. With the exception of high seas fishing,limiting factors in the open ocean are usually environmental and beyond the reach of humans.

Salmonid Fisheries:In 1974, a landmark decision was rendered in Federal court awarding treaty Tribes in the State ofWashington co-management of the fisheries resource and affirming their treaty-reserved right totake 50% of the harvestable surplus of salmon and steelhead passing through or returning to their"usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations." More commonly



referred to as the Boldt Decision, the application of principles established in this decision hasshaped fisheries in the DQ region as we know them today. In addition, some salmon fisheries inPuget Sound are regulated per international agreements, such as the Pacific Salmon Treatybetween the United States and Canada, and within other domestic constraints addressingconservation. Federal, State and Tribal fish managers regulate fisheries in response to varyingrun sizes and allocate the available resource between fisheries to achieve desired spawningescapement goals and harvest allocation guidelines. Despite improving technology, fisheriesmanagement should not be considered an exact science, as there are too many variablesinfluencing the outcome.

Canadian fisheries along the west coast of Vancouver Island, northern shore of the Strait of Juande Fuca, Georgia Strait, and Johnstone Strait intercept significant numbers of DQ origin salmonas they return to their natal streams. In recent years, 45% to 65% of the harvest on coho salmonfrom the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Hood Canal has occurred in Canadian fisheries.

Marine fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Admiralty Inlet, San Juan Islands, and northernHood Canal support commercial and recreational fisheries for non-Indian fishermen andcommercial, subsistence, and ceremonial fisheries for treaty Tribes and their members. Thesefisheries intercept both DQ origin fish stocks and other stocks migrating through the region totheir stream of origin. Some species are harvested in directed fisheries, others incidentally.Fisheries are annually adjusted to provide fishing opportunity on harvestable surpluses and toprotect stocks of concern.

Commercial fisheries in the DQ region are conducted primarily in marine waters, with theexception of a commercial steelhead fishery in the Dungeness River by treaty fishermen. Nofreshwater commercial fisheries are conducted by non-Indian fishermen. A commercial trollfishery is conducted in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by treaty Tribes for coho and chinook

salmon. Sockeye bound for the Fraser River in Canada are harvested by treaty fishermen in acommercial net fishery in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Treaty fishermen also harvest fall chumsalmon in a commercial net fishery in the Strait and San Juan Islands. Commercial net fisheriesare conducted in Dungeness and Quilcene bays by treaty and non-Indian fishermen to harvestsurplus hatchery coho salmon. A commercial net fishery occurs in Hood Canal by treaty andnon-Indian fishermen to harvest chinook, coho, and fall chum salmon. On rare occasions, treatyfishermen conduct commercial hook and line and net fisheries in freshwater to harvest excesshatchery returns. The extent and duration of all commercial fisheries mentioned above isdependent upon annual abundance. Also, these commercial fisheries are a listing of those thatoccur within the DQ region and should not be considered as all-inclusive when describing theannual fishing plan jointly agreed to by treaty and non-Indian fishermen for allocation purposes.

Recreational fisheries by non-Indian fishermen occur in both marine and fresh waters. Largemarine recreational fisheries occur in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Admiralty Inlet, and to a smallerdegree in Hood Canal and San Juan Islands. Freshwater recreational fisheries occur in variousstreams throughout the region- depending upon stock status and abundance.



Recreational fisheries are regulated for conservation purposes through time and area closures andgear and daily bag limits.

Tribal subsistence fisheries provide Tribal members an opportunity to obtain food reserves fortheir households. Tribal ceremonial fisheries provide a food source for specific ceremonialevents, such as funerals, weddings, First Salmon ceremonies, and other dedicated occasions.Like non-Indian recreational fisheries, Tribal subsistence fisheries are regulated for conservationpurposes through time and area closures and gear and daily bag limits.

Hatchery Production:Three large salmon hatcheries supplement and rehabilitate natural production within the DQregion. Historically, hatcheries have served to mitigate for habitat losses and supplement naturalproduction. More recently, some hatchery facilities have been reprogrammed to assist with therehabilitation and recovery of stocks at a high risk of extinction. The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) operates two State hatcheries on the Dungeness River. TheDungeness Salmon Hatchery produces coho salmon yearlings for release into the DungenessRiver. A satellite facility on Hurd Creek, a tributary of the Dungeness River, produces fallchinook salmon juveniles and yearlings for release into the Elwha River, and is the supportfacility for a chinook salmon captive broodstock program on the Dungeness River. In addition tothese State hatcheries, the USFWS operates the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery on the QuilceneRiver. This Federal hatchery primarily produces coho salmon yearlings for release into Quilceneand Port Gamble bays and fall chum salmon for release into Quilcene Bay. An experimentalchinook salmon program is being phased out and a summer chum egg banking program wasinitiated in 1992.

The Port Gamble S’Kallam Tribe operates a small hatchery in Port Gamble Bay to incubate andrear chum salmon. In addition, a net pen complex is operated in Port Gamble Bay for the short-term rearing and release of coho salmon yearlings from the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery.The Port Gamble net pens have also received broodstock from the Dungeness and GeorgeAdams hatcheries operated by the State. The Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC), a regionalTribal fisheries consortium sponsored by the Skokomish, Port Gamble S'Klallam, JamestownS’Kallam, and Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribes, maintains and operates a net pen complex withinQuilcene Bay to short-term rear and release coho salmon yearlings from the Quilcene NationalSalmon Hatchery. Dungeness and George Adams broodstock have also been released at this netpen site in the past.

A cooperative stock recovery program has been implemented at the Hurd Creek SalmonHatchery to rehabilitate Dungeness chinook salmon. A captive broodstock strategy was selectedto preserve the genetic characteristics of the stock and increase the population size so thatsubsequent long-term rebuilding would proceed quickly once the primary factors limiting thechinook population had been identified and corrected. It is important to emphasize that thecaptive broodstock approach is, (and should always be considered), a short-term emergencyapproach to help a stock past a population bottleneck, and not a long-term solution to populationproblems facing stocks at risk of extinction.

The planning process to rehabilitate Dungeness fall pink salmon (lower river) has been initiated



by Federal and State agencies, Tribal governments, and other private and volunteer fisheriesinterests. The 1993 escapement for this stock was approximately 200 fish, down from a recordedhigh of 210,000 fish in 1963. Recovery efforts will probably involve some type of egg-bankingprogram at one of the hatchery facilities on the Dungeness River.

A program to restore coho salmon to Thorndyke and Shine creeks in northern Hood Canal wasinitiated in 1993. The project is a cooperative effort of the WDFW`, treaty Tribes, and the LongLive the Kings organization. Coho salmon runs to these streams have been depressed.Escapements have been minimal and, in particular, few, if any, coho salmon spawners arebelieved to have escaped to Thorndyke Creek the last two years. Coho salmon fry are beingcollected from northern Hood Canal streams and reared to adults at a hatchery owned andoperated by Long Live the Kings on Lilliwaup Creek. Progeny from the collected fry will beplanted into Thorndyke and Shine creeks as part of a restoration program that includes evaluationof stream habitat limiting factors.

There are other educational and cooperative fisheries enhancement projects in the region that areregulated by the State through regional enhancement groups. These cooperative projects consistprimarily of very small educational opportunities in local schools, habitat restoration projects,and natural stock recovery efforts. Of note is a cooperative Salmon Creek summer chumrecovery project in Discovery Bay that receives contributions from the local regionalenhancement group, grassroot fisheries organizations, sportsmen, interested volunteers, and theState.

Shellfish and Other Marine Invertebrates97

Intertidal and subtidal areas within the DQ region support a wide variety of shellfish and othermarine invertebrates. Some of the more popular commercial and recreational varieties includeclams, oysters, shrimp, crab, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers. These marine resources arewidespread throughout the region, on both private and public tidelands, and remain sufficientlyabundant to support commercial and recreational fisheries for non-Indian fishermen andcommercial, subsistence and ceremonial fisheries for treaty Tribes and their members. Shellfishhave always been a principal food source for the Indian Tribes in Washington. There is an oldIndian saying that states, "When the tide is out, the table is set!" Natural clam production inSequim and Discovery bays supports business ventures owned and operated by privatelandowners.

Natural clam production in Sequim and Discovery bays supports business ventures owned andoperated by private landowners. In addition, clam, oyster and shrimp resources in Dungeness,Sequim, and Quilcene bays provide Tribal harvest opportunities for commercial, subsistence andceremonial fisheries.

The harvest of shellfish is regulated not only for resource conservation purposes, but also forpublic health concerns. Health risks can occur after shellfish are exposed to pollution frommarinas and discharge from sewage treatment plants, and marine toxins like paralytic shellfish____________________________97 Prepared by Brad Sele.



poisoning (PSP) and domoic acid. This health risk is not necessarily to the shellfish themselvesbut to the humans who may eat them. Extensive monitoring measures are maintained by State,local, and Tribal governments to ensure shellfish are fit for human consumption. Preventativearea closures are usually imposed by the Washington Department of Health (DOH) when apotential public health risk occurs. Tidelands from Port Williams south along the west shore ofSequim Bay to just below the John Wayne Marina are closed year-round to the harvest ofshellfish because of public health concerns resulting from pollution at the marina and dischargefrom the City of Sequim’s sewage outfall. DOH has also imposed a seasonal closure of tidelandsadjacent to the offshore boat mooring site at Sequim Bay State Park. Other beaches in SequimBay, and near the entrance to Sequim Bay, are subject to conditional public health closures,depending on conditions related to the discharge of sewage from the municipal treatment plant.All beaches are subject to closure if the prevalence of marine toxins exceeds public healthstandards.

WDFW periodically conducts shellfish enhancement projects on tidelands within the DQ region.These enhancement efforts are restricted to clams and oysters and occasionally involve the treatyTribes. WDFW cultures some clam and oyster broodstock at its Point Whitney ShellfishLaboratory in Brinnon, or buys it from private growers. Clam and oyster enhancement occursthroughout the region to supplement natural production, or create new harvest opportunities.

The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe owns and operates a commercial shellfish plant in DungenessBay. The plant buys and sells oysters, clams, crab, shrimp, and scallops. In addition, the businessutilizes Tribal and leased tidelands in Dungeness and Sequim bays to grow oysters for resale.

Other Fish and Wildlife

Resident fish (sportfishing):Marine mammals:Land mammals:Birds:

No detailed characterization of these topics for the DQ region has been done for this project, as aconsequence of time and resource allocation constraints. However, considerable information isavailable through a variety of resources. A partial listing follows:

Two excellent public marine-science centers are in the vicinity: Port Townsend MarineScience Center (at Fort Worden in Port Townsend), and Art Feiro Marine Lab (at City Pierin Port Angeles).

The Rainshadow Natural Science (Interpretive) Center -- (formerly the Sequim NaturalHistory Museum, now re-locating to the Railroad Bridge Park area on the DungenessRiver) provides interpretive programs for adults and school children.

Peninsula College maintains an active fisheries degree program, and an environmentalscience program in conjunction with Western Washington University.



Volunteer support groups for fisheries and wildlife-related interests are active in the region(for example, Wild Olympic Salmon, headquartered in Chimacum).

Professional consultants and research laboratories (Battelle Northwest, for instance), andlocal, State and Federal agencies provide programs and expertise regarding fish andwildlife (Clallam and Jefferson County Conservation Commissions, WA Department ofFisheries and Wildlife, WA Department of Natural Resources, various local and Stateparks, USFWS at Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge and Protection Island, US ForestService - Quilcene Ranger District, Olympic National Park, as examples).

The school districts provide special classes and field work related to fish and wildlifeconcerns (for example, the fish hatchery project at Chimacum High School, and theMatriotti Creek restoration learning center at Greywolf School in Carlsborg).

Two local Audubon Society chapters, Admiralty Audubon in Jefferson County andOlympic Peninsula Audubon in Clallam County, maintain active surveillance of birdpopulations of the DQ region through regular Christmas Bird Counts, spring counts andbreeding censuses, and other programs. The Jefferson County critical areas determinationfor growth management planning (GMA) was aided by Admiralty Audubon determinationsof wildlife distribution.

The watershed management planning projects (non-point-pollution control) in the DQregion (especially the Dungeness area watershed and Discovery Bay watershed) havebenefited from fish and wildlife assessments in the characterization reports from the PugetSound Collaborative River Basin Team.

A good inventory of wildlife in the Olympic National Forest is included in Henderson et al,Forested Plant Associations of the Olympic National Forest.98

A recent publication, Wildlife of Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge,99 discusses thevarious wildlife species that depend upon the refuge, and the management problemsinvolved.

A comprehensive checklist, Olympic Wildlife,100 covers birds, land mammals, marinemammals, amphibians and reptiles, and fish found on the Olympic Peninsula, providingdetail on habitats, abundance, timing of presence and nesting.

________________________________98 Henderson et al. 1989. Pages 71-76.99 USFWS. Wildlife of Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. 1994. A resource paper with accompanying

questionnaire material prepared for discussions of "Resolving Incompatible Uses ... " of the refuge.100 Northwest Interpretive Association and Olympic National Park (Fred Sharpe, researcher, and others).

Olympic Wildlife. 1991



Forests and Other Plant Communities

No general characterization or research on the forest resources and other plant communities ofthe DQ region has been done as part of the DQ project, as a consequence of time and resourceallocation constraints. Special concerns with riparian habitats and wetlands are coveredelsewhere in the Plan.

A major research report, Forested Plant Associations of the Olympic National Forest, preparedby a USFS team,101 provides a valuable reference to the forest areas of the entire Peninsula.Concepts of environmental zones relating climate and physiographic factors to vegetation arecentral to this work. Extensive research into especially subalpine plant communities and theendemic species of the Olympic Peninsula refugia associated with ice-age glaciations has beendone at Olympic National Park.

Current watershed characterization studies include a project covering the Big Quilcene Riverwatershed by a collaborative team of USFS and WDNR personnel102 and a preliminaryassessment by a local interagency team.103 Another study of the Dungeness River watershed, is acollaboration between USFS and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and consultants.104

The watershed characterization reports prepared by the river basin team for the Dungeness Riverarea watershed105 and the Discovery Bay watershed106 provide much useful information on theforested portions of the area, including maps of land use and land cover, forest land ownerships,and timber stand ages.

___________________________101 Henderson, J.A., Peter, D.H., Lesher, R.D., and Shaw, D.C. Forested Plant Associations of the Olympic

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, R6 ECOL Technical Paper 00 1-88. 1989.102 The Big Quilcene Watershed Analysis is a cooperative venture between the Washington Department of

Natural Resources (WDNR) and the USFS Olympic National Forest, involving a multidisciplinary teamassembled from the two agencies and other concerned participants. The analysis is anticipated to becompleted in September 1994. See Chapter 7, J.4 for more information.

103 Local interagency Team (USFWS lead), Big Quilcene River Basin Preliminary Watershed Assessment, April1994.

104 The Dungeness Watershed Habitat Inventory project.105 PSCRBT, Dungeness River Area Watershed (Characterization), June 1991.106 PSCRBT, Discovery Bay Watershed (Characterization), November 1992. The watershed as defined for this

report includes the eastern half of Miller Peninsula with Eagle and Contractors creeks, the mountainous andlower watersheds of Salmon and Snow creeks and their tributaries, and the northern and western portions ofQuimper Peninsula. The characterization includes much useful information as well as GIS- based coveragesfor land coverage and land use, surface waters, geology and soils, etc.



Human Habitation

Early settlement, development patterns, and population

Early settlement:Archeological excavation at the Manis Mastodon site near Sequim provided evidence that peopleinhabited the DQ area as early as 11,000 years ago -- not long after the Vashon ice sheet haddeparted.107 When the earliest European explorers came into the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the late1700's they found native villages and camps along the shores and bays indicating that bands ofpeople moved between pre-established sites with the seasons and the availability of foodresources. Lichatowich has estimated that perhaps 400 to 2100 native people were subsisting onsalmon in the Dungeness River area alone prior to settlement by whites.108

Settlement in the DQ region began seriously in the 1850's. The northern Olympic Peninsula wasoriginally part of Lewis County established in 1845 by the Provisional Government of theOregon Territory. By 1852 the Washington Territory had been separated from Oregon Territory,the territory was officially United States rather than Canadian, and Jefferson County had beencreated from part of Lewis as one of eight Washington Territory counties. In 1854 ClallamCounty was established from part of Jefferson County.109

Settlement proceeded most rapidly in locations with good natural harbors and where logging andearly sawmills could produce lumber for export down the Pacific Coast. Details of developmentof particular areas have been noted earlier in descriptions of the watersheds and coastal areas.

Land development patterns:The overall land area of the DQ region is approximately 660 square miles. Roughly half of that ismanaged by Federal and State agencies, as Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, andWA DNR forest lands, as indicated on Figure 2.68. The national forest was established in the1890's, and the national park in 1938. Of the privately held land shown on Figure 2.68, about 115square miles is in eastern Clallam County, and about 215 square miles is in eastern JeffersonCounty. Much of the privately held land is in large holdings for timber production, although inrecent years many ownerships have changed and forest lands are being converted to residentialand other uses in developing areas. [A land-use map is presented in the Clallam Countyrecommendations chapter of the Plan.]

. Population and population density:The DQ region contains most of the population of Jefferson County and about a third of thepopulation of Clallam County. This amounts to about one-half of the combined population of

_________________________107 Gustafson, C., Gilbow, D., and Daugherty, R. The Manis Mastodon Site: Early Man on the Olympic

Peninsula. 1979.108 Lichatowich, J. Dungeness River Pink and Chinook Salmon: Historical Abundance, Current Status, and

Restoration. October 1993.109 Abbott, N.C., and Carver, F.E. (compiled by Helm, J. W.). The Evolution of Washington Counties. 1978.



the two counties together, in less than 20% of the combined area of the two rural counties.

Current [1992] population of the DQ region is estimated to be 40,000+, as shown in the table onFigure 2.68, split almost equally between the Clallam and Jefferson county portions. Thus, thegross density of population averaged over the entire DQ region -- mountains, forests and all -- iscurrently about 60 persons per square mile, not greatly different from the 73 persons per squaremile for the entire State of Washington in 1990.

Considering only the privately held land (ostensibly available for development) shown on Figure2.68, 40,000+ people on about 330 square miles computes to an average density of about 120persons per square mile. The table in Figure 2.68 indicates how this density varies. The "urban"settings of Sequim and Port Townsend, with densities of over 1700 and 1000 persons per squaremile, are not greatly different in density from the East Seattle census division (includingBellevue, Redmond, Woodinville, etc.) with a density of 1900+ persons per square mile in 1990.Most of the suburban/rural areas have densities averaging about 200 persons per square mile,roughly equivalent to a household for each 5 to 7 acres.

Trends in population growth:The DQ region portions of both Jefferson and Clallam counties have been developing rapidly inrecent years. According to Peninsula Development Association figures110 Jefferson Countypopulation more than doubled between 1970 and 1992, while Clallam County populationincreased by over 75%. Some population projections have been obtained by DQ staff to aid inforecasts of water use [see Chapter 3 in this Plan]. More detailed data on population for smallareas within the DQ region, and additional population projections, should be available in time asgrowth management planning proceeds in the two counties.

Age distributions of the population in sub-areas of the DQ region:Differences in average age between populations of different parts of the DQ region are evident.The most obvious differences show up in areas that are considered as particularly attractiveretirement locations. These differences will have some bearing on water uses, and perhaps alsoon attitudes toward water resource issues.

Figure 2.69 illustrates the population age distribution, by five age groups, for subdivisions of theDQ region that are definable using 1990 Census data. Several observations are interesting.Obviously, Sequim has a proportionately greater senior citizen population than othersubdivisions. Compared to the All-Washington-State distribution, none of the DQ areas have aslarge a proportion of 18-44 age persons.

________________________110 Peninsula Development Association. Overall Economic Development Plan (draft). June 1992.



Economic and employment base:

No concentration on economic and employment aspects of the DQ region has been included aspart of the DQ project, because of time and resource allocation constraints. Reference materialsare available for both Clallam and Jefferson counties.111 Typically, however, such data do notprovide detailed geographic breakdowns necessary to characterize just the DQ portions of thecounties, and overall descriptions are misleading because of the large extent and diverse natureof the counties. More appropriate data may become available as growth management planningproceeds in the counties.

Lifestyle and recreational opportunities:Outdoor recreation opportunities are a major feature of the Olympic Peninsula for its presentinhabitants and for new arrivees. The combination of low population densities, and freedom fromthe traffic, crime, and pollution of developed metropolitan areas are magnets. For activerecreation or just for scenery, the mountains, and fresh and saltwater bodies are widely known.The influx of retirees into the DQ region is probably largely based on the recreational andlifestyle advantages.

The attraction of the environment is not limited to residents. Tourism is currently considered asan important growth industry, in view of economic difficulties with historical economic pursuits.Many residents have reservations about marketing the recreational advantages of the area forenhancement of a tourism industry, versus attempting to keep the region uncrowded for localuse.

A table that identifies important recreational activities accessible in the DQ region is includedhere, as Figure 2.70. This table has been developed by the DQ Recreation Caucus and widelydiscussed in planning meetings.

111 Some relevant documents include: (1) Peninsula Development Association. Overall Economic DevelopmentPlan (draft). June 1993; (2) Clallam County Economic Development Council. Investor's Guide to ClallamCounty. (undated); and (3) Economic Development Council of Jefferson County. Jefferson CountyRelocation and Investor's Guide. (undated).



Figure 2.70 Some current recreational activities utilizing the watersheds and water resources ofthe DQ region. (Chart prepared by the DQ Recreation Caucus).

Recreation: Physical ActivityL l

Need for Access orF iliti

Need for Roads orT ilFreshwater fishing Medium Access Trails

Saltwater fishing Medium Facilities

Scuba diving High Access

Kayaking, canoeing &rafting

High Access on lowerportions

Trails/roads

Motor/sail-boating,wind surfing

Medium Parking and offloading

Shell fishing Medium Access

Gardening Medium

Golf Medium Facilities

Swimming High Facilities

Skiing, snow shoeing Medium-High Facilities Roads/trails

Horseback riding Medium Access Trails

Birding Low-Medium Access Trails

RV/car camping Low Facilities

Picnicking Low Access/Fac

Hunting Medium Access

Bicycling High Roads/trails

ATV Medium Access Trails

Hiking, jogging,running

Medium-High Access Trails

Backpacking High Access Trails

Photography Low Access

Rockhounding Low Access

Mycology, berrypicking

Low Access

Scenic driving Low Access



Impacts from human development and interventions

Consequences of settlement of the region:The size of the pre-white-settlement Native population of the DQ region was relatively small.Considering the Dungeness area, for example, the arrival of settlers about 1850 displaced thisnative population through spread of new diseases and dispersal, and new activities associatedwith settlement began to impact the river system. Cutting of forests, both to clear land forsettlement and farming, and to provide timber and lumber products for export undoubtedly beganto impact river flows. Cutting of riparian buffers of old-growth trees and floating the cut timberdown the Dungeness River must have begun, to degrade channel and bank conditions. By late inthe 1800's settlement and land clearing had extended into the foothills, with homesteading inHappy Valley, on Burnt Hill, Lost Mountain, Texas Valley, and Palo Alto. A disastrous wildfirein 1890-91, reportedly started from land-clearing activities somewhere south and west ofSequim, destroyed over 45 square miles of Dungeness River watershed.

Similar historic impacts occurred in the Discovery Bay watershed. According to the river basinteam report, the settlement and early economy of the area beginning in 1858 was centered aroundits timber resources, largely for export to the San Francisco Bay area. The old-growth timber wasquickly logged, and the majority of the watershed was either harvested or burnedby wildfire between 1880 and 1925 (the disastrous Snow Creek and Discovery Bay fires). Onlyabout 1/6 of the forest was harvested again in the 40 years preceding the 1980's, but harvestinghas accelerated greatly since the early 1980's. Agricultural and residential settlement has resultedin stream channel changes and in degrading of streams and wetlands by animal pasturing, road-building, and other encroachments of human development.

The upper portions of the Big Quilcene, Dungeness, and Gray Wolf river basins have beenprotected from development or logging, initially by inaccessibility, and then by establishment ofOlympic National Park and the Buckhorn Wilderness of the Olympic National Forest. In someareas of the middle and lower portions of these river basins logging has been fairly intensive intothe 1980's. Impacts on the streams have sometimes resulted from road building and hauling,from failure to leave riparian buffer zones, and from post-clear-cut exposure and saturation ofunstable glacial drift deposits. In recent years improved forest practices and increasedmanagement of portions of the forests for habitat conservation and municipal watershed areworking to minimize impacts on the surface water resources.112

The lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River have been impacted substantially by settlement,with dike-building, re-channeling of segments, and development impinging on the natural floodplain and channels.113

________________________112 The Dungeness and Discovery Bay watershed characterization reports of the river basin team (referenced

earlier) provide descriptions, tabular data and mappings showing forest status. Forest Plans and aerial photosprovide more detail, and ongoing assessments of Big Quilcene and Dungeness will contribute newinformation.

113 Collins, B. 1993.



Impact from irrigation diversions of the Dungeness River:The construction and operation of irrigation diversions from the river, beginning with the firstditch system constructed in 1896, have had an impact on the lower 11 miles of the Dungeness,both in loss of instream flows and in entrapment of ocean-bound fish in unscreened irrigationditches. (See Chapter 6, Map 6. 1.)

Five diversions provide water for the ditches of 5 irrigation companies and 4 districts. No recordsare available of diversion amounts until recent years. Monthly measurements by Drost for wateryear 1979 indicated an equivalent annual average diversion of 76 cfs, peaking at 155 cfs forJune.114 The monthly measured diversions in 1979 in cfs were:

cfs cfsOctober 46 April 48November 43 May 145December 28 June 155January 23 July 150February 33 August 115March 33 September 83

Recent data show that irrigation diversions have been reduced substantially since the Drost datawere obtained.

Diversion of Big and Little Quilcene flows for municipal and industrial supply:The Olympic Gravity Water System, constructed in 1928 by the City of Port Townsend,115

diverts water from the Big and Little Quilcene rivers for use in the Port Townsend PaperCompany mill at Glen Cove and for municipal use in Port Townsend and surroundingcommunities. A 36 inch diameter steel gravity-flow pipeline system carries the water from theBig Quilcene diversion dam at RM 9.3, past a Lords Lake reservoir, on to the City Lake flow-regulation reservoir, and ultimately to the mill and Port Townsend municipal uses. The diversionis active continuously, except during Big Quilcene storm flow which would introduce excessiveturbidity. Water is diverted to a lesser extent at a diversion dam at river mile 7.2 on the LittleQuilcene River (9.56 cfs water right) to augment storage in Lords Lake. The Lords Lakereservoir is used as an emergency water source during times of storm flow and excess turbidityin the river flows, and to help provide for summer peak demands. The water right for diversionamounts to approximately 30 cfs from the Big Quilcene and 9.5 cfs from the Little Quilcene. Thelargest share of the water is allocated for the paper mill operations under an agreement betweenthe city and mill owners.

Diversion of river flows for hatchery operations:River flows are diverted from the Big Quilcene and its tributary Penny Creek for the Federal fishhatchery at 2.7 RM on the Big Quilcene River. Flows are diverted from the Dungeness for

__________________________________114 Drost, B.W. 1983.115 Parker, J. G. An Analysis of the Water Resource Management of the Big and Little Quilcene River Basins.

1984. Further information was provided during a DQ field tour of the Port Townsend Paper Mill, and inpresentations during the Quilcene watersheds field tour.



the State hatchery at RM 10.5 on the Dungeness River. In both cases it is understood that thebulk of the water is re-introduced to the rivers downstream, after processing.

Diversion of Dungeness River flows for City of Sequim municipal supply:The city has a water right for diversion (of 1.4 cfs) from the Dungeness River near the hatchery.The water is taken primarily from a streamside infiltration gallery, supplemented by surfacediversion, in the general vicinity of the fish hatchery, and is used in conjunction with a ground-water well-field for municipal supply.

Potential impacts never realized ... :(1) A study by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation begun in 1946 and terminated in

1951116 explored construction of a closed-pipe gravity water distribution system forirrigation of the Sequim-Dungeness area, as replacement for the system of openditches. The system was designed for delivery of up to 180 cf; and calculated to beadequate for sprinkler irrigation of approximately 18,000 acres. An earth-filldiversion dam across the Dungeness River at approximately the location of theAgnew ditch diversion would have had a 260-foot-wide spillway sectionapproximately 9 feet above natural river water level, with levee and diversion-workssections extending to the sides. Fish facilities would include screens and a fish ladderwith 25 cfs flow and an 18" pipe into the fish ladder for downstream migration. Opencanal sections would have fed small reservoirs located part way along the routes ofHighland and Agnew ditches, from which the closed pipe system would distribute theirrigation water. An associated system of 5 drainage canals was proposed to providefor several thousand acres of land having poor drainage. One of the drains would flowto the Strait, two into Dungeness Bay, and two to surface streams. The largest wouldhave consisted of modification of Matriotti Creek. The plan was abandoned becauseof local expressions of opposition to costs, to lack of adequate provision for year-round supply, and to proposed pooling of water rights.

(2) Explorations were undertaken in the early 1980's for hydropower development on theBig Quilcene River. Under consideration were modifications to the diversion dam todivert water into a pressure conduit to a powerhouse, from which it would be returnedto the river. Initial estimates of production of up to 10 megawatts were based on agross head of 850 feet.117

Structures on the major rivers:There are five major bridges spanning the Dungeness River downstream of the mountains:highway bridges at Hwy. 101 (RM 6.4), Old Olympic Highway (Burlingame Bridge at RM 4.0),Woodcock Road (Ward Bridge at 3.25), and Marine Drive (Schoolhouse Bridge at RM 0. 8 5);and a former railroad trestle/bridge now converted to a pedestrian bridge as part of RR BridgePark at RM 5.65. In addition, a minor bridge spans a braided channel to Kincaid Island, threebridges span the Dungeness mainstem above Dungeness Forks, and one spans the lower GrayWolf near the Forks.

___________________________116 US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Sequim Project.117 Parker, J.G. 1984.



Two major bridges span the Big Quilcene River: at the Highway 101 crossing near the hatchery,and the Linger-Longer bridge in Quilcene.

A number of dike structures have been constructed on the Dungeness: below the hatchery, atDungeness Meadows, at the railroad bridge, and below Woodcock Rd. Dikes have also beenconstructed on the lower Big Quilcene River.

Ground-water withdrawals:An inventory of water wells in the Sequim-Dungeness areal 18 illustrates the rapid growth ofresidential and other uses of ground water in the area. Figure 2.71 illustrates the count of 3060water wells, located by square-mile sections, identified in the database. Figure 2.72 shows thepattern of well completions in the years since 1971 when records were first required. Thebuilding boom of the late 1970's and the present expansion are obvious.

A similar inventory database for water wells in the DQ-region portion of Jefferson County hasbeen undertaken by project staff. The initial analysis of the data is presented in Chapter 7 as Map7. 1.

Summary

This characterization has provided a framework of descriptions, illustrations, and references tohelp focus continuing discourse on the DQ region and its water resources.

_________________________118 Clark, W., and Soule, A. Characterization of the Water Wells of Eastern Clallarn County. September 1993.

[Unpublished technical note presenting analysis from a computer-based database of water wells in theSequim-Dungeness area that was developed in conjunction with the Sequim-Dungeness Ground WaterProtection Project (Clallam County and Ecology) and the DQ project.]


Volume 1

Chapter 3

Water Use

Consumptive ! Non-Consumptive

Water Use 3.1

Chapter 3Water Use

Chapter OverviewThis Chapter addresses water resources and how they are used in the DQ Project area. Becausethe meanings of these terms were so critical to the decision-making related to water resources inthe DQ Project the legal context of the term "beneficial uses" is described and the differencesbetween consumptive, non-consumptive, and partially consumptive beneficial uses are furtherdefined. This Chapter includes an overview of water use in the DQ Project area which pullstogether information on water systems, agricultural and industrial water use, and population andwater use projections. A conversion chart for water units is on the back page.

Background on "Beneficial" Uses

Under The Water Resources ActThe Water Resources Act of 1971 was established to promote "public health and the economicwell-being of the state and the preservation of its natural resources and aesthetic values" throughthe proper utilization of the water resources. Water resource policy was developed:

to insure that waters of the state are protected and fully utilized for the greatest benefit tothe people of the state of Washington and, in relation thereto, to provide direction to thedepartment of ecology, other state agencies and officials, and local government incarrying out water and related resources programs. t

Under this Act, RCW 90.54.020 General declaration of fundamentals for utilization andmanagement of waters of the state defines the guidelines for utilization and management ofthese resources and defines beneficial uses to obtain the "maximum net benefits for the peopleof the state."

____________________________1 Chapter 90.54 RCW WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1971.


Water Use 3.2

Uses of water for domestic, stock watering, industrial, commercial, agricultural, irrigation,hydroelectric power production, mining, ,fish and wildlife maintenance and enhancement,recreational, and thermal power production purposes, and preservation of environmentaland aesthetic values, and all other uses compatible with the enjoyment of the public watersof the state, are declared to be beneficial.

Some of the other elements of the Act delineate protection for: the natural environment, of baseflows for perennial rivers and streams and for water quality.

Water Rights and Beneficial UsesUnder RCW 90.14.031 Water Rights, "beneficial use" shall include, but not be limited to, use fordomestic water, irrigation, fish, shellfish, game and other aquatic life, municipal, recreation,industrial water, generation of electric power, and navigation, basically the same definition asunder RCW 90.54.020.

In the Dungeness River, where water rights were adjudicated in State Superior Count in 1924,"water diverted from the river may be used only for the purposes of irrigation, domestic, andstockwater, " and may not be put to uses other than those permitted. Further confusing thesituation is the consideration of whether the water is being put to a consumptive ornonconsumptive use. These can both be beneficial uses, but are not always considered so.

General Understandings about Beneficial UsesIn using these definitions, the State indicates that anything that is not a waste of water isconsidered beneficial, but what is meant has not yet been narrowly defined. In same cases, thislack of definition has lead to confusion and the possibility of misuse of waters of the State. Anexample of this confusion is illustrated in the Dungeness basin by questions about the use ofirrigation water for landscape ponds or golf courses under the existing water rights. Thisconfusion has lead to long discussions and some recommendations by the RPG, though noresolution has been reached, because of the status of State laws and water rights.


Water Use 3.3

Consumptive and Non-Consumptive Uses DefinedThe following is an excerpt from the Key to Dept. of Ecology's Water Rights InformationSystem. This section describes the affect of diversion or withdrawal on the source of supply.

Consumptive1. Surface Water:• Where there is a definite diversion of water from a surface-water source and,

neglecting transportation losses, the full amount of the diversion is not returneddirectly to the original source body or any other surface-water body by means of adefinite surface-water course, channel or pipe.

• Where there is a definite diversion of water from a surface-water source for aconsumptive type of use such as: irrigation, domestic supply, etc.

2. Ground Water:• All withdrawals shall be considered consumptive unless the full amount of the

withdrawal is returned to the source aquifer(s). (Heat pump use will beconsumptive if the water is not returned to the source aquifer(s) but is returned tosome other aquifer(s). If the water is discharged to a surface drainage system, theuse is also consumptive.)

3. Reservoir:• Where there is a definite diversion of water from a reservoir for a consumptive type

of use such as irrigation, domestic supply, etc.

• Where a reservoir stores water for a non-consumptive type of use such as:Hydroelectric power generation, etc; and where a nearly constant volume of storedwater is not maintained in the reservoir under normal operating conditions. (Thisdefinition will include so called run-of-the-river hydro-plants.)

• Where a reservoir is normally filled once for a non-consumptive type of use suchas: fish propagation, beautification, etc.; and where a nearly constant volume ofstored water is maintained in the reservoir under normal operating conditions forthat use. In most cases, outflow from the reservoir is approximately equal to theinflow.


Water Use 3.4

Non-Consumptive

1. Surface Water:• Where no water is diverted from the confines of the surface-water source area or

channel.

• Where the waters used under a right pass over, through, or around an on-stream projectstructure without passing outside of the natural confines of the stream channel.

• Where the waters used under a right are diverted (effectively) at the upstream edge of aproject structure and the full amount of the diversion (neglecting transportation losses)is returned to the same stream channel (effectively) at the downstream edge of theproject structure.

• Where the full amount of the diversion from a surface water source (neglecting transportation losses) is returned to the same surface-water source no farther than 25

feet downstream from the point of diversion.

• Where the full amount of a diversion from a surface-water source is returned to thesame source at any location upstream from the point of diversion (neglectingtransportation losses).

Partially Consumptive1. Surface Water:• Where the full amount of a diversion from a surface-water source (neglecting

transportation losses) is returned to the same surface-water source at a point farther than25 feet downstream from the point of diversion.

• Where the full amount of a diversion from a surface-water source (neglectingtransportation losses) is returned to another tributary source within the same drainagesystem.

• Where the full amount of a diversion from a surface-water source (neglectingtransportation losses) is returned to another surface-water source outside the completedrainage system (to salt-water) in question.

2. Ground Water:• Where the full amount of a withdrawal is returned to the same source aquifer(s).


Water Use 3.5

Water Use Overview: Current and Projected Water Use in theDungeness-Quilcene Project Area

This section is adapted from a study prepared for the Regional Planning Group by Cindy Young,DQ Project Research Staff. As the charts are the primary products of the study, text is mostlylimited to explaining method, information sources, and sources of error. The information in thisreport varies in accuracy levels due to data sources and time constraints. The report has beenreviewed in several drafts by the Technical Committee, however it may contain errors,omissions, or inaccuracies.

Thanks to Welden Clark, Technical Committee Co-Chair, Virginia Clark, Recreation Caucus,and Ann Soule, Clallam County Department of Community Development for reviewing earlydrafts and contributing valuable comments. Linn Clark, DQ Project Data Management Staffcreated the DQ Project area map and acreage counts, and Linda Newberry, DQ ProjectCoordinator helped clarify points and proofread. Comments from other Technical Committeeparticipants were also included in this report. Thanks to the many water users who contributedinformation to this project. (CY)

IntroductionThis water use study is a general overview of current and possible future demands on waterresources in the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Planning Project area. This overviewreport was intended to assist the RPG in their discussions on water resource management in theshort term. Rather than a comprehensive inventory, the report was merely a starting point forfurther study, eventually to be incorporated into a regional water budget.

This section addresses many aspects of current water use: actual examples of water usage in theproject area, generalized estimates of overall water use based on current and projected population,distribution of single domestic well users and water systems types, and water use by major waterusers such as industry and agriculture.

Information sources used in this overview include U.S. Census Data, County PlanningDepartments, Water Facilities Information, and Water Rights Information. Much of the water useinformation came from personal contacts with various water users. In order to be consistent, datafrom 1992 was used whenever possible.


Water Use 3.6

Water Use Overview in BriefThe following tables summarize information discussed in more detail throughout this section.

Table 3.1: Water Use Summary By CountyEstimates for 1992 in the DQ Project Area

Surface Water Ground Water TOTAL UseMil/Gal/Year Mil/Gal/Year Mil/Gal/Year

Clallam CountyResidential / Commercial 57 1045 1102Agriculture 4277 121 4398Hatchery 4136 239 4375

Clallam Total: 8470 1405 9875

Jefferson CountyResidential / Commercial 605 508 1113Industrial 4850 0 4850Agriculture 158 72 230Hatchery / Fisheries 4024 257 4281Navy 27 0 27

Jefferson Total: 9664 837 10501

Table 3.2: Summary of Residential Water System and Well UsersPercent of DQ Project Area Users From Each Group By County

Group "A" Group "B" Single DomesticWater System Water System Well Users

Users UsersJefferson County 74% 2% 24%Clallam County 58% 4% 38%


Water Use 3.7

Population DistributionCurrent population was based on 1990 Census data extrapolated to 1992 using growthprojections from Clallam County Department of Community Development and Jefferson CountyPlanning Department. Population data is broken down into 11 areas within Eastern ClallamCounty and 10 areas within Eastern Jefferson County. Population data is explained in more detaillater in this section. Refer to Map 3.1: DQ Project Sub Areas Map and Table 3.3: DQ ProjectPopulation Distribution and Density for the area names and numbers used throughout this report.

The areas for Jefferson County have been used in planning for many years and are the basis ofCommunity Planning Committees in recent Growth Management Planning efforts. The areas forClallam County were based on a recent Growth Management transportation study. Ideally, theClallam County areas used in this report would also be community planning areas rather thantransportation planning areas. Community planning areas have been determined for ClallamCounty Growth Management planning, but census population data and growth projections werenot available at the time of this study.

The area names listed may not be the only common names used for these areas. Readers mayprefer to refer to the area numbers. The names are given for each area only for the convenienceof readers who may not remember area numbers as easily.

Note: Clallam County area 8, "Central Sequim" represents previous Sequim City limits whichhave been outdated by recent Growth Management Act Urban Growth Area designations.

National Park land, National Forest land, and Department of Natural Resources land, as shown inTable 3.3, was subtracted from the total acreage count for each area. Acreage for Clallam Countyareas was calculated from the digital map in Map 3.1 using the DQ Project GIS. Acreages forJefferson County were from a Jefferson County Planning Department report2 minus DNR landacreage from the DQ GIS coverages. Acreage estimates are helpful for generalized comparisonsof densities, but contain inherent inaccuracies because of the methods used.

______________________________2 Cindy Peyser. Build-Out Report on the Optimum Land Use Map. 1992.


Water Use 3.8


Water Use 3.9

Table 3.3: DQ Project Area Population Distribution and DensityAcreage counts do not include Federal and DNR Forest Lands

1992 Estimated Acres Acres per Area Population Private Land Person

Clallam

1 Fairview 1718 9837 5.72 Agnew/Spit 1132 3835 3.43 R Corner 774 6862 8.94 Lost Mountain 3230 12080 3.75 Carlsborg 1783 5684 3.26 Jamestown/WA Harbor 3251 9037 2.87 West of Sequim 2011 3272 1.68 Central Sequim 4096 1516 0.49 Blyn/Palo Alto 726 11147 1510 Bell Hill 572 2843 511 Miller Peninsula 836 6768 8.1

County Total: 20129 72881

Jefferson

1 Port Townsend 7530 44630.62 Cape George 2431 106814.43 Marrowstone Is 759 29543.94 Hadlock 3652 70611.95 Discovery Bay 923 21641236 Chimacum 1163 21502187 Port Ludlow 1444 55963.98 Shine 828 8538109 Coyle 394 254936510 Quilcene 1213 2206718

County Total: 20337 129996

DQ Area Total: 40466 202877


Water Use 3.10

Examples of Residential and Commercial Water UseA partial inventory of 1992 public water system data was undertaken to try to determine whetherthere were any distinct patterns of water usage (rural vs. urban, etc.) within the DQ Project areawhich could be the basis of water use estimates. Public Utility Districts, Cities, and some of thelarger water systems were contacted for water use information. Early on in the inventory itbecame apparent that information on residential and commercial water use in the project area islimited because so many of the residents are on unmetered water systems or wells. In the end, itseemed safer to base water use estimates on a generalized daily per capita water use.

1. Examples of DQ Area Residential Use: Water systems listed in Table 3.4 show examples ofthe great variation of residential water use throughout the project area. The amount ofresidential water used in winter compared to summer use is shown to give a general sense ofindoor and outdoor water use. Winter use could be considered to represent year-round indooruse. Summer use could represent outdoor irrigation in addition to indoor use. Household sizefor each system is estimated from Dept. of Health water system records.

Some of the factors which may contribute to the variation include whether the area is rural,suburban, or urban; whether the system is metered and how customers are billed; waterpressure, leaks, and other structural considerations; differences in accounting systems; parcelsize and type of landscaping; climate and soil types; number of people per household; andtypes of water fixtures.

2. Examples of Residential Use Outside the DQ Project Area: It may be of use to comparethe DQ area figures to others areas. A study in the late 1970`s concluded that the averageAmerican uses 77 gallons/capita/day for indoor residential water use3. No comparable studiesfor the average American outdoor residential use were found. Per person residential water usein the City of Port Angeles is 73 gal/capita/day in winter and 110 gallons/capita/day insummer.4

3. Examples of DQ Area Commercial Water Use: Table 3.5 shows examples of commercialwater uses in the DQ area. Commercial water users are primarily centered in urban areaswithin municipal or PUD water service areas. Commercial generally includes anynon-residential users on water systems or wells including businesses, restaurants, hotels, andchurches.

______________________________3 Brown and Caldwell. Residential Water Conservation Projects: Summary Report. 1984.4 Polaris Engineering. 1993 Comprehensive Water Plan For the City of Sequim. 1993.


Water Use 3.11

4. Examples of Combined Residential and Commercial Use: Table 3.6 shows examples oftotal daily per capita use including both residential and commercial use on the water system.

Table 3.4: Examples of Current Residential Water Use in the DQ ProjectArea

Includes primarily single family residencesWater System Name # of Est. Winter Use Summer Use Avg. Use

Conn- household gal/house/daygal/house/day gal/house/dayections size

Clallarn PUD at Carlsborg 23 2.3 146 285 234City of Port Townsend n/a n/a 138 278 n/aCity of Sequim 890 3.3 146 327 208Clallam PUD at Fairview 808 3.5 179 373 244Sunland 565 1.9 224 643 n/aSolmar 231 3.2 n/a n/a 349

Table 3.5: Examples of Commercial Use in DQ Project Area

Water System # of Connections Use/Conn./DayCity of Sequim 304 958Clallam PUD Fairview 24 981Clallam PUD Carlsborg 4 836City of Port Townsend n/a n/a

Table 3.6: Examples of Combined Commercial and Residential Use

Water Systems gal/cap/dayHadlock service area 137 (EES, 1992)City of Port Angeles 157 (Polaris, 1993)City of Sequim 159 (Polaris, 1993)City of Port Townsend 194 (EES, 1992)Clallam PUD Fairview system 115Clallam PUD Carlsborg system 169


Water Use 3.12

Regional Water Use EstimatesCombined residential and commercial water use in this report is based on 150 gal/capita/day.This commonly used figure of combined residential and commercial users is used in Table 3.7and Table 3.15: Projected Residential and Commercial Water Use. Refer to Table 3.6 forexamples of actual variations from the 150 gal/cap/day generalization within the DQ Projectarea. Presumably, in urban areas, more of the 150 gal/cap/day would be used for commercialuses, and in rural areas, more of the water would be used for landscaping. Small-scale residentialfarm water use is also considered in Table 3.12: Industry, Agriculture, and Other Water Users.


Water Use 3.13

Table 3.7: Estimated Current Residential and Commercial Water UseBased on current population and 150 gal/capita/day throughout the DQ Project Area

1992 Estimated Use Estimated Use Area Population Mil./Gallons/Day Mil./Gallons/Year

Clallam1 Fairview 1718 0.26 942 Agnew/Spit 1132 0.17 623 R Corner 774 0.12 424 Lost Mountain 3230 0.48 1805 Carlsborg 1783 0.27 986 Jamestown/WA Harbor 3251 0.49 1807 West of Sequim 2011 0.30 1108 Central Sequim 4096 0.61 2209 Blyn/Palo Alto 726 0.11 4010 Bell Hill 572 0.09 3111 Miller Peninsula 836 0.13 46

Clallam Total: 20129 3.0 1102

Jefferson1 Port Townsend 7530 1.13 4102 Cape George 2431 0.36 1303 Marrowstone Is 759 0.11 424 Hadlock 3652 0.55 2005 Discovery Bay 923 0.14 516 Chimacum 1163 0.17 647 Port Ludlow 1444 0.22 798 Shine 828 0.12 459 Coyle 394 0.06 2210 Quilcene 1213 0.18 66

Jefferson Total : 20337 3.1 1113

DQ Area Total: 40466 6.1 2216


Water Use 3.14


Water Use 3.15

Population on Water Systems

Water Systems Defined: Water system information in this report is based on the StateDepartment of Health Water Facilities Inventory (WFI) Data Base. WAC 246-290 defines Group"A" and "B" water systems and outlines design, operations, and water quality requirements forthe two types of systems.

• Group "A" water systems have 15 or more service connections, or serve an average of 25or more people per day for 60 or more days a year. Group "A" systems are further brokendown into community systems, and transient and nontransient noncommunity systems.Noncommunity systems include restaurants, taverns, motels, campgrounds, parks,schools, etc.

• Group "B" water systems have less than 15 connections and serve an average of less than25 people each year.

In order to compare the population on water systems to the total resident population, the scope ofthis study was limited to finding the number of residential connections active more than 180 daysa year, regardless of whether on a community or noncommunity system.

Possible Sources of Error: Population figures in the following charts are based on two differentsources of information, and the accuracy may vary between areas. Total population is an estimateprojected from census data, as explained in the Population Distribution section. Populationserved by water systems is based on individual water system manager's estimates of householdsize. These figures may not reflect actual household averages for each area.

Also, the location of water systems in the sub areas was generally determined from well location,while some systems may actually cross planning area boundaries.

Population figures for the following areas were altered: Port Townsend, Hadlock, Port Ludlow,and Central Sequim. The population estimates provided by the State Department of Health forthe water systems in these areas exceeded the population estimates acquired from the CountyPlanning Departments shown in Table 3.3: DQ Project Population Distribution and Density.Without this modification, these areas would have shown negative percentages for singledomestic well users. Central Sequim system population and residential connections listed inTable 3.8 and 3.9 have been modified to reflect information from the Census on population perhousehold.


Water Use 3.16

Table 3.8: Water System Users: Group "A" and "B" SystemsConnections and Population include residential connections active more than 180

days/yearGROUP "A" WATER SYSTEMS GROUP "B" WATERSYSTEMS

Total Area (from DOH) (from DOH)Area Population # of # ofPopulation on # of # ofPopulation on

SystemsConnections"A" systemsSystemsConnections"B"systems

Clallam

1 Fairview 1718 1 336 775 0 0 0

2 Agnew/Spit 1132 3 249 460 7 27 69

3 R Corner 774 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 Lost Mountain 3230 9 590 1585 I2 55 139

5 Carlsborg 1783 7 360 964 7 26 63

6 Jamestown/WA Harbor 3251 19 1046 2336 18 97 251

7 West of Sequim 2011 5 307 686 I4 46 121

8 Central Sequim 4096 I 2272 4096 0 0 0

9 Blyn/Palo Alto 726 6 37 I01 6 2I 53

10 Bell Hill 572 2 44 115 4 16 42

11 Miller Peninsula 836 3 278 564 2 11 28

Clallam Total : 20129 56 5519 11682 70 299 766

Jefferson

1 Port Townsend 7530 4 3083 7530 0 0 0

2 Cape George 2431 7 636 1472 10 35 90

3 Marrowstone Is 759 2 6 15 4 9 24

4 Hadlock 3652 2 1522 3650 2 1 2

5 Discovery Bay 923 7 152 332 3 2 5

6 Chimacum 1163 I 0 0 2 4 4

7 Port Ludlow 1444 2 72I 1398 6 19 46

8 Shine 828 4 169 405 9 42 99

9 Coyle 394 3 26 40 2 4 9

10 Quilcene 1213 I3 36 95 15 50 I29Jefferson Total: 20337 45 6351 14937 53 166 408

DQ Area Total 40466 101 11870 26619 123 465 1174


Water Use 3.17

Table 3.9: Residential Water Summary: Systems and Single WellsData Source: "Total Pop." from County Planning Census Data, System Population

from DOHPopulation on % of Population on % of Est Pop. on % of"A" Water Total "B" Water Total Single Domestic Total

Area Systems Pop.- Systems Pop. Wells Pop.

Clallam

1 Fairview 775 45.1 % 0 0 % 943 54.9 %

2 Agnew/Spit 460 40.6 % 69 6.1 % 603 53.3 %

3 R Corner 0 0 % 0 0 % 774 100 %

4 Lost Mountain 1585 49.1 % 139 4.3 % 1506 46.6 %

5 Carlsborg 964 54.1 % 63 3.5 % 756 42.4 %

6 Jamestown/WA Harbor2336 71.9 % 251 7.7 %a 664 20.4 %

7 West of Sequim 686 34.1 % 121 6.0 %a 1204 59.9 %

8 Central Sequim 4096 100 % 0 0 %a 0 0 %

9 Blyn/Palo Alto 101 13.9 % 53 7.3 % 572 78.8 %

10 Bell Hill 115 20.1 %Q 42 7.3 % 415 72.6 %

11 Miller Peninsula 564 67.5 % 28 3.3 % 244 29.2 %

Clallam Total: 11682 766 7681

Jefferson

1 Port Townsend 7530 100 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

2 Cape George 1472 60.6 % 90 3.7 % 869 35.7 %

3 Marrowstone Is 15 1.98 % 24 3.2 % 720 94.9 %

4 Hadlock 3650 99.9 % 2 0.05 % 0 0 %

5 Discovery Bay 332 36 % 5 0.5 % 586 63.5 %o

6 Chimacum 0 0 % 4 0.3 % 1159 99.7 %

7 Port Ludlow 1398 96.8 % 46 3.2 % 0 0 %

8 Shine 405 48.9 % 99 12 % 324 39.1 %

9 Coyle 40 10.2 % 9 2.3 % 345 87.6 %a

10 Quilcene 95 7.83 % 129 11 % 989 81.5 %

Jefferson Total : 14937 408 4992

DQ Area Total: 26619 1174 12673


Water Use 3.18

Population on Single Domestic Wells

Estimated Single Domestic Well Users: The number of single well users in both Clallam andJefferson County was estimated by subtracting the number of residents on Group "A" and "B"water systems reported to the Dept. of Health from the total census population figure for eacharea. The resulting information gives a general idea of the likely distribution of wells throughoutthe area.

A well log overview data base has recently been developed for Eastern Clallam and JeffersonCounties by Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Planning Project participants. It will soon bepossible to cross-check these estimates by counting wells logged in each area.

Estimated Well Densities: Single domestic wells were estimated from the single well usersestimates and assuming 2.3 people per household. All of these figures are estimations, so thefinal well densities likely has a substantial margin of error. However, total wells for each Countyin Table 3.10 are surprisingly close to the preliminary count of wells in the DQ Project well logoverview data base.


Water Use 3.19

Table 3.10: Estimated Total Wells and Well Density in the DQ Project AreaSingle Domestic Wells based on Estimated Population on Single Domestic and

household size of 23Wells Estimated Single Estimated Total Approx.

Supplying Domestic Wells Wells serving Acres WellsWater (based on 2.3 Permanent Private per

Area Systems household size) Population Land Acre

Clallam

1 Fairview 1 410 411 9837 0.042

2 Agnew/Spit 12 263 275 3835 0.072

4 Lost Mountain 25 657 682 12080 0.056

5 Carlsborg 17 330 347 5684 0.061

6 Jamestown/WA Harbor 54 289 343 9037 0.038

7 West of Sequim 26 527 553 3272 0.169

8 Central Sequim 1 0 1 1516 0.0007

9 Blyn/Palo Alto 13 250 263 11147 0.024

10 Bell Hill 7 182 189 2843 0.066

11 Miller Peninsula 9 106 115 6768 0.017

Clallam Total: 165 3014 3179 66019

Jefferson

1 Port Townsend 0 0 0 4463 0

2 Cape George 17 379 396 10681 0.037

3 Marrowstone Is 5 316 321 2954 0.109

4 Hadlock 8 0.87 8.87 7061 0.001

5 Discovery Bay 11 256 267 21641 0.012

6 Chimacum 3 504 507 21502 0.024

7 Port Ludlow 17 0 17 5596 0.003

8 Shine 14 143 157 8538 0.018

9 Coyle 6 150 156 25493 0.006

10 Quilcene 28 440 468 22067 0.021

Jefferson Total : 109 2188 2297 129996

DQ Area Total: 274 5203 5477 196015


Water Use 3.20

Industrial, Agricultural, and Other Water UsersThere are many large water users in the DQ Project area. The scope of this study did not allowtime to inventory users such as car washes, gravel operations, Laundromats, restaurants, etc.Most of these uses are considered to be included in the 150 gal/cap/day for combinedcommercial and residential use. However, a few specific large water users are listed separately.

The Port Townsend Golf Course, US Navy base on Indian Island, the Federal Fish Disease Lab,and Port Townsend Paper Mill are all served and metered by the City of Port Townsend WaterSystem. Use figures for Hatcheries are for 1992, although use typically varies greatly A fromyear to year.

Figures for Clallam and Jefferson County irrigation are "best guesses" by members of eachirrigation community. Figures quantifying Chimacum Valley irrigation water use are based on anestimate of typical pump capacity and use for the past several years by known irrigators5. Figuresin Table 3.12 for irrigation water use in C1alIam County are based on the number of acres underirrigation in a normal recent year and general irrigation requirements. Commercial irrigationassumes 5500 acres under irrigation using an average of 1.25 acre feet of water per acre. Smallfarm water use assumes 5000 acres under irrigation also using 1.25 acre feet of water per acre.6Figures for Grey's Marsh and Waerhauser are based on pump capacity and typical wateringpatterns.7

Another method for calculating agricultural water use by water diversion measurements is notincluded in the figures in Table 3.12 or in overview Table 3.1, but is listed separately here inTable 3.11. The figures for water diverted in 1992 in Table 3.11 axe based on an average ofmeasurements taken by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

Table 3.11: Alternative Figures for Sequim-Dungeness Irrigation Water UseAssumes a 5 month irrigation season (approx. Apr. 15 - Sept. 15).Surface water use only.

CFS Mi1/Gal/YrCrop Requirements 44 4,276Water Diverted in 1992 71 6,883

Total Allowed by Water Rights 581 56,326

_________________________5 Roger Short, Jefferson Conservation District. Personal communications. November 29, 1993.

6 Roger Schmidt, Water Users Association. Personal communications. January, 25, 1994.7 Ann Soule, Clallarn County Water Quality. Memo to Cindy Young, DQ Research Staff.

March 30, 1994.


Water Use 3.21

Table 3.12: Industry, Agriculture, and Other Water Users1992 or 1993 Water Use

Total UseCounty Large User Mil/Gallons/Year

ClallamWDFW Upper Dungeness Hatchery 3420

Sequim-Dungeness Commercial Farms 2240

Sequim-Dungeness Small Farms 2036

WDFW Hurd Creek Hatchery 955

Grey's Marsh Farm 110

Waerhauser Tree Farm 12

County Total: 8773

JeffersonPort Townsend Paper Company 4850

USFWS Quilcene Hatchery 4277

Chimacum Valley Irrigation 230

US Navy at Indian Island 27

Federal Fish Disease Lab 4

County Total: 9388

DQ Area Total : 18161


Water Use 3.22

Water Supply Source

Clallam Residential and Commercial: Almost all of Clallam County's 126 water systemsserving residences in Clallam County use either a single well or several wells to supplycustomers. The only surface water source listed by Department of Health data is arecreational system on Sequim Bay. In 1992, 26% of the City of Sequim supply came froman infiltration gallery near the Dungeness River (counted as surface water in Table 2.13), and74% came from wells8.

Jefferson Residential and Commercial: Surface water users an the Port Townsend systeminclude the 7530 residents in Port Townsend, 2983 residents in the Hadlock area, andapproximately 511 people served by Jefferson County PUD in the Cape George area. Groundwater used to occasionally supplement water from the Quilcene River for the Port Townsendwater system during summer peaks in demand, is not included in Table 3.13. Other surfacewater systems include the Moa-Tel system in Discovery Bay, the Shulz system in Shine, andthe Falls View Campground in Quilcene. An estimated 43 permanent residents are suppliedby those spring-fed systems. The remaining 9278 residents are served by water systemssupplied by wells or are likely single domestic well users. Individual surface water rights fordomestic use in the planning area were not considered in this study.

Clallam Agriculture: Although at one time several hundred acres of irrigated farmland and300 dairies used well waters9, today most of the water used for both commercial and smallfarms comes from surface water diversions from the Dungeness River. Grey's Marsh and theWaerhauser Tree Farm are two notable exceptions included in Table 3.12.

Hatcheries: Hurd Creek Hatchery figures are based on the general assumption that onequarter of the total water used comes from wells and three quarters from Hurd Creek. 99.4%of the Quilcene Hatchery water use was from surface water in 1992, 75.27% from the BigQuilcene River, and 24.11 % from Penny Creek.10

Jefferson Industry: The Port Townsend Paper Mill, the US Navy base on Indian Island, andthe Fish Disease Lab on Marrowstone Is. are all served by the Port Townsend system, anduse surface water for a combined total of 4881 million gallons annually.

_________________________8 Polaris Engineering. 1993 Comprehensive Water Plan For the City of Sequim. 1993.9 Ann Soule, Clallam County Water Quality. Memo to Cindy Young, DQ Research Assistant.

March 30, 1994.10 Larry Tellas, NFH. Personal communications. March 2, 1994.


Water Use 3.23

Table 3.13: Water Supply Source

Surface WaterGround Water TOTAL USECounty Water Use Mil/Gal/Year Mil/Gal/Year Mil/Gal/Year

Clallam

WDFW Upper Dungeness Hatchery 3420 0 3420

Sequim-Dungeness Commercial Farms 2240 0 2240

Sequim-Dungeness Small Farms 2036 0 2036

Clallam Residential / Commercial 57 1045 1102

WDFW Hurd Creek Hatchery 716 239 955

Grey's Marsh Farm 0 110 110

Waerhauser Tree Farm 1 11 12

County Total: 8470 1405 9875

Jefferson

Port Townsend Paper Company 4850 0 4850

USFWS Quilcene Hatchery 4020 257 4277

Jefferson Residential / Commercial 605 508 1113

Chimacum Valley Irrigation 158 72 230

US Navy at Indian Island 27 0 2?

Federal Fish Disease Lab 4 0 4

County Total: 9664 837 10501

DQ Area Total 18134 2242 20376


Water Use 3.24


Water Use 3.25

Future Water Use

Residential and Commercial: Projected residential water use depends on 1) projectedpopulations, and 2) projected water use per capita. Assuming per capita water use is 150gal/capita/day and the population grows as predicted by the Growth Management processes,the yearly water use for the DQ Area will eventually increase by 63% to 3612 million gallonsper year in 2020. Demand for residential and commercial water use will be 9.89 milliongallons per day in 2020, up from 6.06 million gallons per day in 1992.

Jefferson County Projection: Current and projected residential population information isbased on a Planning and Building Department Study.11 Overall County growth isprojected by using a modified exponential growth rate based on 5.18% growth with anupper capacity limit of 45,000 by 2014. Overall growth rates vary yearly from 4.07% in1993 to 1.05% in 2013. Projected populations, including 1992 population, aredistributed to the 10 planning areas based on percentage patterns of building permitdistributions. Population figures are adjusted here to match Clallam County's five yearintervals and extrapolated to the year 2020.

Clallam County Projection: Current and projected residential population information isbased on a transportation study by Clallam County Department of CommunityDevelopment.12 A growth rate for each 10 year period is determined for each of the 12planning areas. The Central Sequim and West of Sequim areas are predicted to grow2.6% until the year 2000 and 2.43% from 2000 until 2020. The rest of the ClallamCounty areas are predicted to have 1.3% growth until 2000 and 1.01% until 2020.Population figures for the Fairview area are estimated by halving figures for theplanning area from Port Angeles to Siebert Creek.

Industry, Agriculture, and Other Large Users: There are too many unknowns to estimatefuture large user needs. However, the following are some general indications of future shiftsin water use. While there are always economic uncertainties for industrial water users such asthe Port Townsend Paper Mill, for an overview like this, one can only estimate industrialwater use continuing at its current level for the foreseeable future. Proposed conservationmeasures will likely help the Clallam Irrigation community to use less water in the future.New large water users might include several new golf courses, a casino, and new recreationand tourism facilities.

____________________________11 James Holland. Population Change in Jefferson County: The Next 20 Years. 1993.12 Wendy Clark. Clallam County Population Projections (unpublished). 1993.


Water Use 3.26

Table 3.14 DQ Project Area Population Projection GMA Projections from Jefferson Planning and Clallam Dept. of Community

DevelopmentArea 1992 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Clallam

1 Fairview 1718 1737 1769 1784 1799 1890 1985

2 Agnew/Spit 1132 1176 1254 1319 1386 1456 1529

3 R Corner 774 804 858 902 949 996 1046

4 Lost Mountain 3230 3356 3580 3764 3958 4158 4367

5 Carlsborg 1783 1853 1976 2078 2185 2293 2409

6 Jamestown/WA Harbor 3251 3378 3604 3789 3985 4186 4397

7 West of Sequim 2011 2090 2229 2344 2465 2589 2719

8 Central Sequim 4096 4416 5020 5661 6383 7158 8027

9 Blyn/Palo Alto 726 755 806 847 891 936 983

10 Bell Hill 572 617 702 791 892 1000 1121

11 Miller Peninsula 836 869 927 975 1025 1077 1131

County Total : 20129 21051 22725 24254 25918 27739 29714

Jefferson

I Port Townsend 7530 8144 9148 10037 10813 11434 11939

2 Cape George 2431 2952 3527 3862 4149 4215 4383

3 Marrowstone Is 759 865 982 1050 1090 1121 1155

4 Hadlock 3652 4146 4954 5671 6296 6795 7318

5 Discovery Bay 923 972 1025 1056 1074 1089 1105

6 Chimacum 1163 1291 1433 1517 1565 1604 1645

7 Port Ludlow 1444 1934 2733 3440 4059 4552 5069

8 Shine 828 984 1156 1257 1315 1362 1412

9 Coyle 394 431 472 495 509 520 532

10 Quilcene 1213 1344 1489 1574 1624 1663 1705

County Total: 20337 23063 26919 29959 32494 34355 36263

DQ Area Total: 40466 44114 49644 54213 58412 62094 65977


Water Use 3.27

Table 3.15: Projected Residential and Commercial Water UseBased on GMA population projections and 150 gal/capita/day Figures rounded

1992 Use 2000 Use 2010 Use 2020 UseArea Mil/Gal/Year Mil./Gal/Year Mil/Gal/Year

Mil./Gal/Year

Clallam

1 Fairview 94 97 98 110

2 Agnew/Spit 62 69 76 84

3 R Corner 42 47 52 57

4 Lost Mountain 180 200 220 240

5 Carlsborg 98 110 120 130

6 Jamestown/WA Harbor 180 200 220 240

7 West of Sequim 110 120 130 150

8 Central Sequim 220 270 350 440

9 Blyn/Palo Alto 40 44 49 54

10 Bell Hill 31 38 49 61

11 Miller Peninsula 46 51 56 62

County Total : 1102 1244 1419 1627

Jefferson

1 Port Townsend 410 500 590 650

2 Cape George 130 190 230 240

3 Marrowstone Is 42 54 60 63

4 Hadlock 200 270 340 400

5 Discovery Bay 51 56 59 60

6 Chimacum 64 78 86 90

7 Port Ludlow 79 150 220 280

8 Shine 45 63 72 77

9 Coyle 22 26 28 29

10 Quilcene 66 82 89 93

County Total: 1113 1474 1779 1985

DQ Area Total : 2216 2718 3198 3612


Water Use 3.28

USGS Summary of Ground- and Surface-Water Use

Table 3.16: Summary of Ground- and Surface-Water Use in Clallam andJefferson Counties All values in millions of gallons per day13.

CLALLAM COUNTY JEFFERSON COUNTY

GW SW CU GW SW CUPublic Water Supply (*) 5.91 0.98 -- 0.41 13.2 --Industrial Self-Supply 0.03 0.01 -- 0.00 0.00 --Commercial Self-Supply 0.11 0.06 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.03Mining 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01Irrigation (*) 0.43 42.0 17.1 1.71 0.30 1.25Livestock 0.15 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.00 0.05Domestic Self-Supply 1.72 0.00 0.90 0.55 0.00 0.36

GW=ground water withdrawalSW=surface water withdrawalCU=consumptive use* = reasonably accurate, all other values estimated by indirect methods

____________________________13 USGS. A Plan of Study for the Ground- and Surface-Water Resources, the

Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Planning Project. 1994.


Water Use 3.29

Water Unit Reference

Table 3.17: Conversion Chart

Multiply: By: To Obtain:

Acres 43,560 Square Feet

Acres 43,560 Cubic Feet

Acre-Feet 325,851 Gallons

Cubic Feet/Second 0.646317 Million Gallons/Day

Cubic Feet/Second 448.831 Gallons/Minute

Gallons 0.1337 Cubic Feet

Gallons/Minute 0.002228 Cubic Feet/Second

Million Gallons 3.06933 Acre-Feet

Million Gallons/Day 1.547228 Cubic Feet/Second

Million Gallons/Year 0.0042389 Cubic Feet/Second

Square miles 640 Acres

Divide: -B y: To Obtain:

Gallons 325,851 Acre-Feet

Volume 1

Chapter 4

Information ResourcesHabitat Projects

Information Resources and Habitat Projects 4.1

Chapter 4Information Resources and Habitat Projects

Chapter Overview

This is a resource chapter which lists information which was compiled, analyzed, created, orinventoried for Regional Planning Group efforts. Much of the information was organized into theDQ Project library and also was used to create Chapter 2: Characterization of the DungenessQuilcene Project Area and Its Water Resources. These information resources becameincreasingly important to the Regional Planning Group throughout the planning process.

The Chapter begins with a summary of the types of information collected throughout the processfor the DQ Project library. Specifc studies and reports from the library which were created byconsultants, agencies, or committee members for the DQ Project are each listed and brieflydescribed. Inventories of the library stream flow data collection and a separate inventory ofrecent habitat projects in the DQ Project area conclude the Chapter.

Future information needs and data gaps are more thoroughly discussed in the strategies andrecommendations for research and data management in Chapter 9: Technical Support.

The following is a list of some of the agencies and organizations referred to in this chapter: HoodCanal Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG), the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe (JKT), JeffersonCounty Conservation District (JCCD), North Olympic Salmon Coalition (NOSC), Point NoPoint Treaty Council (PNPTC), Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), WashingtonDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW), Wild Olympic Salmon (WOS), U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Soil Conservation District (SCS).These are abbreviated throughout this Chapter.



4.2 Information Resources and Habitat Projects

DQ Project Library SummaryThe DQ Project Water Resources Library was created, at the request of the Technical Committeeand the Regional Planning Group to: 1) Collect existing information on water resources in theregion; 2) Collect information on other planning processes; 3) Make that information easilyaccessible to project participants and staff by organizing it in a central location and providingstaff support. The DQ Project Water Resources Library is located at the Jamestown S'KlallamTribal Administration Building in Blyn, Washington.

Information collection began in Summer of 1992, with more thorough organization in Winter of1993. At first staff spent considerable time searching out information from participating agenciesand from other organizations outside the area. As more DQ Project participants became familiarwith the library, more and more new materials were contributed by project participants. At thetime of printing, the DQ Library filled over 21 feet of linear shelf space.

The types of materials in the DQ Project Water Resources Library include books, reports, plans,committee working papers, data sheets, current events articles, newsletters, pamphlets, videospresentations to the RPG and Technical Committee, audio tapes of RPG meetings, USGS maps,and maps produced from the DQ GIS. Individual materials are grouped by general subject.Within each general subject, some materials are large enough to stand on their own and othersmaller or unbound materials are grouped into topic notebooks. Research Support Staff compiledand updated a library bibliography which lists all materials in the library. The librarybibliography and instructions on how to use the library were made available to RPG members,Technical Committee members, and members of the public for individual research. The libraryhas also been a valuable resource for staff support of County work group meetings and thewriting of this plan.

The following briefly summarizes the information collected for the DQ Project Water ResourcesLibrary. Some types of information which were of particular interest to the DQ Project aredescribed in more



1. Hydrogeologic CharacterizationThis section contains primarily technical information on surface water, ground water,precipitation, and hydraulic continuity. Flow data for DQ Project area streams and ditches wascollected and compiled in one notebook (See flow data inventory section, this Chapter). Severalreports characterizing stream-flows in DQ Project area streams are included. DQ committeeworking papers add to the base of information (see Studies by Technical Committee Participants,this Chapter). A series of USGS technical manuals outline procedures for data collection fromstream gages and two USGS reports evaluate Washington strearnflow data collection.

There is a small amount of precipitation data in the library including a committee working paper(see Studies by Technical Committee Participants, this Chapter) and some local precipitationdata. There are several examples in the library of USDA SCS water supply outlook reports whichare available regularly.

Information relating to ground water includes soils, geology, and general geographiccharacterizations. SCS soil surveys have been published for both counties. For Jefferson County,a 1981 Ecology report is the primary source on hydrogeology, and a study by Jefferson PUD,(draft) has additional geologic information relating to water supply. In Clallam County, a 1983USGS water resources study and cross-sections developed for a recent Clallam Countyground-water quality study are some of the primary hydrogeologic information available at thispoint. Much of this was compiled as a handout for the RPG field trip focusing on ground water.

Several committee working papers and agency reports address hydraulic continuity and groundwater vulnerability. Other information includes characterizations of geography and specific riversystems in committee papers, coastal shore-drift analysis reports, and general statewidecharacterizations of ecoregions and hydrology.

2. Fish and WildlifeFisheries information includes salmon utilization of streams, the relationship of habitat to fishproduction, and fisheries management.



Fish utilization and status sources include a 1975 Dept. of Fisheries Washington stream catalog,the 1992 salmon and steelhead inventory, and some additional information in recent reports. Thelibrary also contains some stream survey data. Recent and current studies are described in detaillater in this chapter. Instream flow studies of varying types have been completed for nearly allstreams and rivers in the DQ Project area. A small amount of miscellaneous information has alsobeen collected on shell fish. (JKT has a considerable amount of information on shell fish andrelated issues.)

3. HabitatThe Habitat section includes information on the river channel structure and riparian and wetlandsfunctions and values. Reports, studies, evaluations, opinion papers, and permits were compiledon gravel traps, aggradation, and sediment transport, primarily for the Dungeness River. Plantassociation reports cover the Olympic National Forest and the Dungeness watershed. Most of therest of the information is general in nature, including guidelines and manuals on habitatrestoration, values, functions, and management.

4. Water QualityThe Water Quality section includes studies on DQ Project area seawater intrusion, localwatershed action plans, educational materials on water quality, and policy and technical reportsof state-wide and national scope.

5. Land Use and ManagementThe Land Use and Management section contains information on best management practices,local forest management plans, population projections for the DQ Project area, and GrowthManagement planning discussion papers.

6. Agriculture and IrrigationThe Agriculture and Irrigation section includes information specific to the Sequim-Dungenessirrigation systems, and general irrigation information. This includes historical and currentnewspaper articles, water right certificates, ditch flow records, miscellaneous information onadjudication, and studies on the relationship between leakage and ground water. Generalinformation includes demonstration projects,



case studies, guidelines, and discussion papers on irrigation conservation.

7. Conservation and Water ReuseSeveral manuals geared to the general public, decision makers, and/or utility managers describetechniques and planning options for conservation. Information on storage consists of designoptions for cisterns and a large-scale storage feasibility study done by the Bureau of Reclamationin the early fifties. The library has a small but growing set of information on water reuse options,case studies, and regulations.

8. EducationThe library has a variety of general water resource educational information including pamphlets,brochures, classroom manuals, and catalogues of programs. The DQ Project has also acquired aseries of educational software which explain waste-water treatment, drinking water, waterconservation techniques, the hydrologic cycle and general hydrogeology, and agricultural bestmanagement practices.

9. Water LawThe Water Law section is made up of legislation, water rights information, court rulings, andvarious policy and issues papers related to water laws. Washington State legislation collected forthe library includes WAC's, RCW's, acts and housebills related to water resources and waterquality. Water rights source materials include listings for all DQ Project area water rights andwater claims from Ecology's Water Rights Information System, and certificates of water rightswith lowflow provisions. Adjudication rulings, briefs, memos, and newspaper articles relating tocourt cases on water rights in Yakima, Sinking Creek, and the Dosewallips were collected for thelibrary. (See 6. Agriculture and Irrigation section for information on SequimDungenessirrigation water rights.)

10. Planning, Policy, and GovernmentGovernment processes, programs, and management are in this section, including information oncollaborative and coordinated planning case studies, techniques, and conflict resolution. Wildand Scenic river designations, ground-water and flood management, and information on thecoordination of programs (such as Growth Management with



Coordinated Water Supply Planning or Shoreline Management Act) and Ecology's Trust WaterRights program make up the remainder of this section.

11. Data ManagementThe Data Management section contains information on the Data Management Task Forceactivities, Census data guides, and many case study articles on how to use GIS and data bases asdecision support systems for water resources.

12. Plans and Studies Within the DQ Project AreaThis section is a collection of dozens of reports, plans, and studies done within the DQ Projectarea. It includes watershed management plans, comprehensive plans, characterization andassessment reports, flood control plans, and other local works. These have provided valuablereference materials on water resources and existing programs and recommendations.

13. Processes Similar to Pilot ProjectProcesses similar to the Chelan process, either in scope or in structure, were researched in theearly stages of the DQ Project. The library includes studies, plans, programs, and case studydescriptions for projects in British Columbia, and throughout the western states.

14. Chelan Agreement PlanningThe library includes meeting notes, technical and policy papers, and background information onthe Dungeness-Quilcene Project, the Methow Valley Pilot Project, and the Water ResourcesForum.

15. Video Tape LibraryEducational "focus sessions," consultant projects, and Technical Committee researchpresentations were all video-taped by DQ Project staff or Chimacum High school students. Themost popular video set is the DQ/USFS film of helicopter flights over the rivers, streams, andshorelines in the DQ Project area. The library also includes general water education tapes andtapes describing other watershed planning projects.



Listing of DQ Project StudiesThis section is divided into studies funded by the DQ Project, studies funded by participatingagencies, and studies undertaken by Technical Committee participants.

A. Studies Funded By the DQ ProjectThe Technical Committee identified a list of short-term studies which filled critical gaps inthe existing information. The following studies were funded by the Regional PlanningGroup and completed in 1993. See Chapter 13: RPG Committees, for more information onthe selection process. "Fact Sheets" on each of these are available in the DQ Project library.

A-I. Dungeness River Irrigation Ditch Leakage Assessment:Montgomery Water Group (MWG) conducted this study with thecooperation of Roger Schmidt, the Water Users Association, andditch managers from each of the ditches in the system. MWGconducted flow measurements to quantify seepage from mainditches into shallow aquifers. The final report lists potentialwater conservation measures and addresses potential impactsfrom conservation on ground water, streams, and wetlands.

A-2. Preliminary Assessment of Seawater Intrusion in CoastalWater Wells in Eastern Clallam and Jefferson Counties: Dr.Robert Forbes inventoried wells previously tested by the U.S.Geological Survey for chloride, and other wells throughout theproject area. CH2M Hill managed the project and coordinatedthe well testing team of Blaine Ebersold of CH2M Hill, ChuckLehotsky and Kirk Sinclair from Ecology, and Ann Soule of theClallam County Water Quality Department. The report identifiesareas of potential risk of seawater intrusion.

A-3. Sediment Transport and Deposition in the Lower BigQuilcene River and Evaluation of Planned Gravel RemovalFor Flood Control: Brian Collins gathered existing data andresurveyed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cross sections for thisanalysis and evaluation study. Peter Bahls of PNPTC assistedwith the scope of work. Al Latham of JCCD assisted with thefield surveys. Funding for this study was provided in part fromthe HCSEG.



A-4. Instream Flow Recommendations For the DQ Area Salmon andSteelhead Streams: Joe Hiss of USFWS used the Toe WidthMethod to measure stream width to estimate stream flows foroptimum fish habitat. Cooperators included the Jamestown and PortGamble S'Klallam Tribes, PNPTC, USFS, USGS, NMFS, Ecology,and WDFW.

A-5. The Status of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the Streams of EasternJefferson County, Washington: Jim Lichatowich of Alder ForkConsulting discussed the salmon stock concept and life histories asrelated to genetic diversity and harvest management strategies. Thereport centers on an overview of the abundance of Pink, Chum,Chinook Salmon, Steelhead and Cutthroat runs in recent years. Avariety of sources were used in the report including published data,personal interviews and other community-based information.

A-6. Plan of Study for the Ground- and Surface-Water Resources ofthe DQ Area: Henry Bauer of USGS inventoried existinghydrogeologic information for the project area, identified data needs,and created a work plan for a comprehensive water resource study.The report covers objectives for the study, water quantity and qualityinformation needs and methods, costs, and timelines for suggestedwork. The results of the proposed 5-year study would provideinformation on both surface and ground water resources in theregion to assist long term regional water supply planning, waterrights processing, and land owner decision-making. (For more detail,see also the Proposed Data and Research Projects section in Chapter9: Technical Support.)

A-7. Stream and River Gage Installation and Data Collection: TomHiggins of USGS installed a total of 12 gages throughout the DQProject area. Site selection considered both fisheries concerns andhydrogeologic information needs. A continuous-record gage wasinstalled on the Dungeness River at the old Railroad bridge. Staffgages were installed on the Quilcene River at the Port Townsenddiversion and below the Hatchery diversion, and a wire-line gagewas hung from the Highway 101 bridge just below the Hatchery. OnChimacum Creek staff gages were installed on the Main Stem atIrondale Road, lower West Fork at Chimacum High School, and theupper West Fork at West Valley Road. Other gaging sites areSalmon




Creek at West Uncas Road, Chevy Chase Creek at South DiscoveryRoad, Ludlow Creek above Falls, Shine Creek below State Highway104, Thorndike Creek at Dabob Road, and Donovan Creek. USGSmeasured flows monthly from July 1993 through January 1994 andalso measured flows in April 1994 at each of the gage sites. Localvolunteers were assigned to each gage to take readings betweenUSGS visits. USGS developed stage/discharge relationships toinclude gage-height data from volunteers. (Funding to continue theflow measurement program is needed.)

A-8. Well Log Data Base: The well log data bases allow generaloverview analysis, giving insight into development patterns. Thesemay also be used to screen well logs for more in-depthhydrogeological study. Information includes number and location ofall logged wells, time of drilling, altitude of well head and depth ofwell and rated flow with no lithology included. Ann Soule ofClallam County Water Quality Dept. and Welden Clark beganentering information from Dungeness area well logs for their workon the Dungeness River Area Watershed Committee. The DQProject hired staff to complete data entry on well logs for EasternClallam County, and to create a comparable data base for EasternJefferson County. A preliminary analysis of water wells has beencreated for both Jefferson and Clallam Counties.A-9. USFS Flyover Videos: The USFS Quilcene Ranger Districtfilmed helicopter flights over area rivers and creeks, funded in partby the DQ Project. Videos are available for RPG and communitymembers on Dungeness and Quilcene Rivers and tributaries, LittleQuilcene River, Chimacum, Jimmy Come Lately, and McDonaldCreeks. Also, Marrowstone and Indian Islands coastlines werefilmed.



B. Studies Funded Recently By Participating AgenciesIn addition to the studies funded by the Regional Planning Group, studies were funded recentlyby participating agencies which have been useful to the RPG.

B-1. Dungeness River Pink and Chinook Salmon HistoricalAbundance, Current Status, and Restoration: Jim Lichatowichwas commissioned in 1992 by the JKT in preparation for the DQProject.

B-2. The Status of Pacific Salmon Stocks in the Quilcene RangerDistrict: Jim Lichatowich was commissioned by the USFS 1993.The study includes several DQ area streams in Clallam County notin the scope of the East Jefferson County study.

B-3. Oral History of Dungeness River Salmon: Jim Lichatowich wascommissioned in 1993 by the JKT to record Dick Goin'sobservations of the Dungeness fishery over a period of five decades.

B-4. Review of the Influence Exerted by Environmental Factors onSpring Chinook Salmon in the Dungeness River: Jim Lichatowichwas commissioned in 1993 by the JKT to study the relationship ofenvironmental factors such as river flow peaks, minimums, averageflows, and precipitation on salmon abundance.

B-5. East Jefferson County Groundwater Characterization Study:Economic and Engineering Services and Pacific Groundwater Groupwere commissioned by Jefferson County PUD in 1993 for this study.

C. Studies By Technical Committee ParticipantsTechnical Committee discussions spurred a number of participants to research specific topics forpresentation at Committee meetings or RPG meetings. Contributors for these "discussion papers"included: Welden Clark, Technical Committee co-chair, Virginia Clark, Recreation Caucusmember, Pat Wennekens, Environmental Caucus member, Ann Soule, Clallam County WaterQuality Dept., and Cindy Young, DQ Project Research Staff.



C-1. Description of the Big Quilcene River and Tributaries: Description of landmarks of theentire Big Quilcene system by river miles. W. Clark and V. Clark, September 1992.

C-2. An Overview of the Water Resources of the DQ Project Area: A first cut at quantifyingthe water "budget" of the project area for early Regional Planning Group discussions. W.Clark and V. Clark, March 1993.

C-3. Sedimentation Ecology as it Applies to Salmonid Spawning and Development:Summarization of sediment movement principles and gravel sizes for salmon spawningrequirements. P. Wennekens, April 1993.

C-4. Dungeness River Daily Flows and Bedload Estimates: Estimation of bedload by yearbased on flow/transport relationships developed by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. W.Clark, April 1993.

C-5. Technical Note on Hydrologic Cycle - Hydraulic Continuity -Water Budget: Additionalgeneral hydrogeologic information compiled to built on the March Water ResourcesOverview. P. Wennekens, May 1993.

C-6. Terrain Modeling of the Dungeness River System: Examples of three-dimensional watershed quad maps derived from elevation data. W. Clark, and V. Clark. June 1993.

C-7. Hydraulic Continuity - Focus on Sequim Valley Drainage: Summarization of hydrauliccontinuity terms, and principles and areas by hydraulic continuity classification based ongeology. P. Wennekens, June 1993.

C-8. Hydrologic Cycle - Infiltration / Hydraulic Continuity, A Look at Some Basics:Hydrologic cycle basics and summarization of information on water movement in soil. P.Wennekens, June 1993.

C-9. Notes on the Dungeness River System ...Flows and Precipitation: An exploration of therelationship of flow data, snow pack, and precipitation data to regional climate. W. Clark,July 1993.

C-10. Characterization of the Water Wells of Eastern Clallam County: Preliminary resultsfor the Sequim-Dungeness area from the DQ Project well log data base. W. Clark, and A.Soule. September 1993.



C.11. Graveling the Dungeness: Discussion of the historical gravel environment of theDungeness River including human's influence. P. Wennekens, November 1993.

C.12. An Overview of Regional Climate and Weather Information Relevant to theNortheast Olympic Peninsula: This outline summarized research collecting data onprecipitation, wind, stream flow, and satellite weather patterns showing the degree ofvariability and the lack of predictable patterns to water quantities. W. Clark, and V.Clark, December 1993.

C.13. Comparison of Recommended Flows to Recorded Flows for Streams of EasternJefferson County: Preliminary comparisons of recorded stream flow data torecommended flows for optimum fish production from the USFWS study (Hiss, 1993)for Chimacum Creek and Little Quilcene River. Also included preliminary inventory ofwater right quantities and flow data for the whole DQ Project area. C. Young, November1993.

C.14. Comparison of Recommended Flows to Recorded Flows for Streams of EasternClallam County: Preliminary comparisons of recorded stream flow data torecommended flows for optimum fish production from the USFWS study (Hiss, 1993)for most Clallam County streams. C. Young, March 1994.

C.15. Characterization of the Dungeness-Quilcene Region and Its Water Resources,Chapter 2, DQ Plan: Summarization of much of the available information on thephysical environment of the N.E. Olympic Peninsula, including information created bythe DQ Project Technical Committee. The final version of this document comprisesChapter 2. W. Clark, June 1994.

C.16. Water Use Overview: Current and Projected Water Use in the Dungeness-QuilceneProject Area, Chapter 3, DQ Plan: Compilation and analysis of data on populationprojections, water systems, agriculture and industry water use, single domestic well use,and water sources. Also, a partial water use inventory is included. A final version of thisreport is included in Chapter 3: Water Use. C. Young, June 1994.



Inventory of Planned and Recent Habitat Studies andProjectsThe studies and projects described below add to the body of knowledge about our watershed. Insome areas, a great deal of work has been done (such as the Dungeness River), while other areasremain data-poor, calling for comprehensive work in the future. Some of the studies describedhere are referenced in Appendix A: References.

This section is divided by county. Within each county section, projects are grouped by whetherthe projects are primarily assessment studies,habitat protection, or restoration and enhancement projects.• Watershed assessment is a problem analysis process to develop and document a

scientifically-based understanding of the processes and interactions occurring within awatershed. Components of habitat problem assessments can include hydrogeological and/orbiological study and analysis.

• Habitat protection is an action taken or a decision made that protects the physical and/orbiological environment in a watershed.

• Habitat restoration is an action taken to correct specific problems identified throughwatershed analysis or other full watershed inventory process.

• Fisheries or habitat enhancement is an action taken to create conditions in the physical orbiological environment that will optimize survivorship of the population in question.

Eastern Clallam County Projects

A. Habitat Assessment

A-1. Dungeness River Habitat Analysis:• Channel Problem Definition: In 1992 the JKT commissioned a study by Jack

Orsborn and Steve Ralph to assess available information and define problems inthe Dungeness River basin system. In 1993, phase 2 of the Tribe's study includedmonitoring channel stability in the lower 10 miles of the river. This has includedassessing gravel scour and deposition and potential impacts to chinook and pinksalmon redds.



• Stability Assessment: As part of Clallam County's Jobs for theEnvironment grant, the County will compile new cross sectionsof the Dungeness River channel in the winter of 1994-95 toassess stability.

• Habitat Inventory: In 1994, the USFS and the JKT are buildingon previous studies by conducting a comprehensive habitatinventory in the Dungeness River System. The inventory willassess habitat features, temperature, and channel analysis,particularly in the lower 9 miles. The JKT received a Jobs forthe Environment grant in 1994 to assist the inventory project.NOSC has also contributed to this project.

• Erosion and Culvert Inventory: In the spring of 1995, ClallamCounty under the Jobs for the Environment grant will conductan inventory of erosion sites and culverts on the DungenessRiver in order to determine priorities for restoration work.WDFW will also be involved in the inventory work.

A-2. Ambient Monitoring Project: Starting in 1993 and continuingin 1994, the PNPTC with funding from the Centennial CleanWater Act Program will conduct fish habitat inventories, andtemperature, sediment, and macroinvertebrate sampling inSiebert, McDonald, and Salmon Creeks.

A-3. Stock Analysis Studies:• Dungeness Stock Status: Jim Lichatowich was hired by the JKT

in 1992 to assess Dungeness River pink and chinook salmonhistorical abundance, current status, and restoration. In 1993Lichatowich also completed for the JKT an oral history ofDungeness salmon with Dick Goin, local fisherman.

• Small Stream Stocks Status: In 1993 the USFS Quilcene RangerDistrict commissioned Jim Lichatowich for a stock statusassessment study including McDonald and Jimmy Come LatelyCreeks.

• Environmental Factors: In 1993 the JKT commissioned a studyby Jim Lichatowich on the influence of natural environmentalfactors on spring chinook in the Dungeness. Joe Hiss, USFWS,in 1994 is studying the influence of historical factors such asdikes, forest practices, and road




construction and possible correlation to Dungeness chinook declines.• Dungeness Pink Outmigration: Joe Hiss, USFWS, is sampling in 1994 and 1996 for

juvenile pink salmon to determine timing of out-migration. Results will determinetiming for release of hatchery coho to prevent impacts on pinks. USFWS is alsoplanning similar sampling for chinook in August and September, if workload permits.

A-4. Instream Flow Studies:• Dungeness River: In the late 1980's an Instream Flow Incremental Methodology

(HIM) study was started for the Lower Dungeness River. Preferred flows wereestablished in 1990 for the Dungeness River.

• Small Streams: In 1993 USFWS established preferred flows for fish for other ClallamCounty streams and made recommendations for Bell, Cassalery, Chicken Coop,Gierin, Jimmy Come Lately, Johnson, McDonald, Meadowbrook, and Siebert Creeks.

B. Habitat Protection

B-1. Forest Practices and County Land Use Review: The JKT with funding from the Timber,Fish, and Wildlife Program (TFW) will continue to review proposed logging, water rights,and other land use activities in Clallam County and the N.E. Olympic Peninsula. The goalis to eliminate or reduce negative impact to fish habitat.

B-2. Dungeness River Bank Stabilization: In 1994 Clallam County received a five-year EPA319 grant for a model bank stabilization project. Dikes upstream of the BPA power lineswhich constrict the stream channel may be removed to restore channel geometry. ClallamCounty will address the management of dikes, particularly the Army Corps dike near theSequim water intake.

B-3. Dungeness Screens Upgrading: The fish screens on the Highland ditch intake werereplaced in 1993-94 by the Highland Ditch Company and WDFW.

B-4. Dungeness Gravel Traps: WDFW is continuing assessment of the impact of gravel trapson salmon, in conjunction with JKT habitat inventory studies. Only 2 HPA permitsspecifically for gravel traps have been approved for 1994 while the assessment



continues: a project downstream of the schoolhouse bridge and aproject near Dungeness Meadows across from the dike.

B-5. Pollution Prevention: In 1993 CCCD, JCCD, VVSU CooperativeExtension Services contracted with JKT to provide one-on-oneoutreach and educational workshops on soil protection, water qualityprotection; and water conservation to landowners in the DQ Projectarea, funded by a pollution prevention grant from EPA. Thesecontracts have enabled the organizations to integrate their currentactivities with an expanded outreach program. The ConservationDistricts began work with agricultural and forest landowners inDecember 1993, and Cooperative Extension is now beginningresidential landowner education through a "Home*A*Syst"program. The program will continue through spring 1995.

B-6. Habitat Protection in Agricultural Areas: The CCCD incooperation with SCS in 1990-92 installed 8,188 feet of fencing toprotect stream corridors on Casselary and Bell Creeks. Stock watertroughs and/or stock crossing bridges were also constructed onCasselary, Bell, Gierin, Agnew, and Chicken Coop Creeks. In1992-93, CCCD and SCS worked with Clallam County to install1,700 feet of fencing along Matriotti Creek. In 1993 the CCCDinstalled 6,510 feet of fencing to protect Gierin, Agnew, ChickenCoop, and Meadowbrook Creeks.

C. Restoration and EnhancementC-1. Dungeness River Habitat:

• Overwintering Pools: In 1993 a land owner built salmon restingpools/overwintering ponds below the Hatchery and at OlympicGame Farm on the Dungeness River. Clallam County built

restingpools on Clallam County property along the River.

• Meadow Creek: In 1994 the Dungeness Meadows HomeownersAssociation and property owners will work with NOSC, NorthOlympic Land Trust, and Clallam County to restore the habitat

atDungeness Meadows on Meadows Creek, a tributary to theDungeness.

• Bank Stabilization: In 1994 1200 feet of shoreline on theSeverson

property located downstream of the railroad bridge will berestored

and stabilized by Clallam County under the Jobs for theEnvironment grant. Also, in 1994-95 Clallam County will

stabilize



the bank and re-establish the riparian zone on the west side of the river,upstream from the schoolhouse bridge. This l+1/4 acre project isassociated with the Anderson Road extension project.

• General Restoration: CCCD in 1994 received a grant from Ecology forDungeness River area stream restoration projects. Over the next two years,CCCD will coordinate with the Clallam County Jobs for the Environmentgrant projects.

C-2. Dungeness Stock Enhancement:A chinook captive broodstockprogram seeks to capturejuvenile chinook and rear themto adulthood at the Hurd Creekhatchery and area net pens.Juveniles are captured fromredds as emergent fry, and in1994 will be captured in the eyedegg stage in redds at high risk ofscour from high flows. TheProject began in the spring of1993 (1992 brood), and firstprogeny is scheduled for releasein 1996. This is a joint projectbetween JKT, WDFW, andNOCS, with technical assistancefrom USFWS and NMFS. Asimilar program for lower pinksalmon is in the planning stages,with a draft report due in the fallof 1994.

C-3. Johnson Creek Habitat:Highland Irrigation District, theJKT, and Clallam Countyworked in 1990 on landslidereparation and prevention ofassociated water quality problems. This trio also worked with the CCCD andEcology's Youth Conservation Corp to plant several hundred coniferDungeness Chinook Brood Stock Program seedlings in the riparian corridor ofJohnson Creek.

C-4. Matriotti Creek Habitat: NOSC, Clallam County, CCCD, andSCS, working with a local educational program, conductedhabitat restoration on Matriotti Creek near Grey Wolf School in1992-93. Meanders were restored, pools formed, large woody



debris placed, and trees were planted. Education programs willcontinue on this creek. In 1994, CCCD and SCS will work withMatriotti tributary landowners through DNR's StewardshipIncentives Program to fence, install stock troughs, create pools andgravel beds, and build stock bridges.

C-5. Gierin Creek Habitat: Land owners, with funding and technicalsupport from DNR's Stewardship Incentives Program, theAgricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, CCCD, andSCS began work in 1993 to restore Gierin Creek. A new,meandering channel was dug, pools were created, and rocks wereadded. Trees were planted along the bank, and some fencing wasinstalled. Over the next four years the landowners hope to restore 5miles of the creek.

C-6. Meadowbrook Habitat: CCCD and SCS worked with landownersto restore 1100 feet of habitat on Meadowbrook Creek in 1993.Pools were formed, gravel added, meanders restored, large woodydebris installed, and trees planted.

C-7. Upper Watershed Habitat Restoration: The USFS has proposedrestoration projects in eastern Clallam County in the upperwatersheds. If specific project and sites are approved and funded,most will be completed in 1994 and 1995.• Culvert Fish Passaize: The USFS plans to replace or install

culverts to provide fish passage in Gold Creek (tributary tothe Dungeness River) and Jimmy Come Lately Creek.

• Riparian Forest Mana eg ment: The USFS plans to plantconifers such as cedars along upper Gold Creek and thelower Gray Wolf (both tributaries to the Dungeness River).Sites have been identified in the Jimmy Come Lately Creekwatershed for tree pruning and thinning which willencourage understory development, thus improving habitatdiversity.

• Road Obliteration: Road obliteration projects, possiblyincluding culvert removal, restoration of stream crossings,fillslope retrieval, scarification, waterbar construction,and/or erosion control have been proposed for the JimmyCome Lately watershed.



Eastern Jefferson County Projects

A. Watershed Assessment

A-1. Big Quilcene River Watershed Analysis and Restoration: In 1994 the USFS completed apreliminary watershed assessment under the Clinton Forest Plan FEMAT. In the summerof 1994 the USFWS, Olympic National Forest, USFS Quilcene Ranger District, and DNRwill complete the follow-up preliminary watershed analysis, and then begin indicatedrestoration work on federal and non-federal lands.

A-2. Big and Little Quilcene Rivers Monitoring: The City of Port Townsend has beenworking with the USFS on several assessment projects including water quality monitoringand watershed-use monitoring.

A-3. Ambient Monitoring Project: Since 1993, PNPTC, with funding from the CentennialClean Water Act Program has been conducting fish habitat inventories andmaeroinvertebrate monitoring in Salmon and Donovan Creeks, and the Little QuilceneRiver, including Howe and Ripley Creeks. The work is expected to be completed by 1995.

A-4. Stream Water Quality Monitoring: JCCD, with Jefferson County documented waterquality in streams leading into Quilcene Bay in 1993. In 1994 the JCCD will bemonitoring water quality in streams feeding into Discovery Bay as part of the DiscoveryBay Watershed Management planning process.

A-5. Stream Temperature Study: In 1992 and 1993 the PNPTC conducted stream temperaturemonitoring at 29 sites in Hood Canal including the Little Quilcene River, Leland,Donovan, Ripley, Tarboo, Chimacum, Shine, and Thorndike Creeks. Temperatures werecompared to state water quality standards to determine if high temperatures were a factoreffecting salmon populations.

A-6. Stock Status Studies: In 1993 the DQ Project RPG and the USFS Quilcene RangerDistrict, each funded stock status assessment studies by Jim Lichatowich. All of thestreams in Eastern Jefferson County were included in the studies.

A-7. Small Stream Spawning Surveys: WOS assisted the PNPTC with spawning surveys onTarboo, Thorndike, Ludlow,



Chimacum, and Shine Creeks in 1993, and will continue to do moresurveys in 1994.

A-8. Hood Canal Habitat Inventory: In 1993, the PNPTC and USFWSconducted habitat inventories in Hood Canal streams includingTharndike and Shine Creeks.

A-9. Sediment Transport and Deposition in Lower Big QuileeneRiver: In 1993 The DQ Project RPG, the HCSEG, and the PortGamble S'HIallam Tribal Fisheries Office funded a study by BrianCollins to discuss sediment depositional patterns in the lower river,and to evacuate the effectiveness of proposed gravel traps and theirimpacts on fisheries habitat.

A-10. Snow Creek Coha Study: Habitat and natural productioninformation on adult, fingerlings, and smolts were collected in SnowCreek in 1993 and 1994 as part of a PNPTC effort to evaluateoptions for habitat enhancement and supplementation of Hood Canalcoho salmon. This information will be used in a limiting-factoranalysis to evaluate options for enhancement and supplementation ofsalmon stocks in Hood Canal. Actual projects may begin in 1995 iffunding can be secured.

A-11. Instream Flow Need Studies: In 1985, Jefferson County PUD #1commissioned Hosey and Associates for an instream flawincremental methodology (IFIM) study on the Big Quilcene River.USFWS and the PNPTC will review original data from the study in1994. In 1993, USFWS took toe-width measurements to determinepreferred fish flows in streams in eastern Jefferson County. Includedin the study were Chimacum, Contractors, Howe, Leland, Ludlow,Ripley, Shine, Tarboo, Donovan, Salmon, Snow, and ThorndikeCreeks and the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. USFWS alsodetermined preferred fish flows for Penny Creek. From thesestudies, there are now "Instream Flow Needs For Fishery Resources"for all of the rivers and streams in the DQ Project area. In somecases, further analysis of these determinations is needed.

A-12. Culvert Inventory: OPF and WOS with funding from a Jobs forthe Environment grant are conducting an inventory of culverts inEastern Jefferson County in coordination with Jefferson CountyPublic Works Department. The project will evaluate potential fishimpasses throughout the county.



B. Habitat Protection

B-1. Habitat Protection in Agricultural Areas: JCCD, with WOS and NOSC assistedlandowners with planning, funding, and labor for stream fencing projects in 1992 and1993, and will be continuing in 1994. Areas affected by the fencing include Chimacum,Leland Creek, Cemetery Drain (tributary to Quilcene Bay), Hauk Creek (tributary toSalmon Creek), and Tarboo Creek. In 1994 Chimacum and Beaver Valley fencing will befunded by a OPF Jobs for the Environment grant.

B-2. Big Quilcene River Sediment Control: In 1993 JCCD worked with landowners,government agencies, Tribal, State, and Federal fisheries personnel to establish graveltraps to intercept the sediments that accumulate during storm events. Gravel trapssuccessfully filled in December 1993.

B-3. Forest Practices and County Land Use Review: The JKT with funding from the Timber,Fish, and Wildlife Program (TFW) will continue to review proposed logging and otherland use activities on the N.E. Olympic Peninsula, in "usual and accustomed" fishing andhunting areas. The goal of the program is to eliminate or reduce negative impacts to fishhabitat.

B-4. Pollution Prevention: In 1993 CCCD, JCCD, WSU Cooperative Extension Servicescontracted with JKT to provide one-on-one outreach and educational workshops on soilprotection, water quality protection, and water conservation to landowners in the DQProject area, funded by a pollution prevention grant from EPA. These contracts enable theorganizations to integrate their current activities with an expanded outreach program onpollution prevention. The Conservation Districts began work with agricultural and forestlandowners in December 1993, and Cooperative Extension is now beginning residentiallandowner education through a "Home*A*Syst" program. The program will continuethrough spring 1995.



Wild Olympic Salmon Volunteers “cleaning” spawning gravels in Jefferson Count (WOS)



C. Restoration and Enhancement

C-1. Andrews Creek Habitat: In 1994, WOS and OPF with funding from a Jobs for theEnvironment grant, will excavate canary grass, plant trees, and install large woody debrison Andrews Creek, tributary to Snow Creek.

C-2. Big and Little Quilcene Rivers Upper Watershed Restoration: The USFS, incoordination with the City of Port Townsend, has been working on road obliterationprojects, erosion control, fish habitat improvements, and the development of BestManagement Practices on Forest Service land in the watersheds. These projects areimproving water quality and decreasing potential impacts on fish habitat by makingimprovements in upper watershed conditions. The City will apply for a Centennial CleanWater Fund grant for further water quality projects.• Quilcene Tributaries Channel Restoration: In 1993 the

USFS added woody debris and rocks to create pools, andimproved the outlets of culverts in Townsend Creek and theNorth Fork of Tunnel Creek, both tributaries to the BigQuilcene River. The Forest Service plans to improve fishpassage through culverts on the South Forks of TunnelCreek.

• Erosion Prevention: Work will continue in 1994 to preventfurther erosion from the 1993 landslide on the Big Quilcenenear the City's water diversion.

• Riparian Management: The Forest Service has identifiedsites in the Big and Little Quilcene upper watersheds fortree thinning and pruning which will improve the foresthabitat diversity by encouraging understory development.

• Dam Improvements: In 1994 the City of Port Townsendwill rebuild the Little Quilcene River diversion dam,damaged by a 1993 flood event, to include a fish ladder toprovide access to habitat in the upper watershed and ascreen to keep fish out of the diversion.

C-3. Big Quilcene Fisheries Enhancement: A captive broodstock program for early chumwas started in 1993 as a cooperative effort between USFWS, PNPTC, WOS, and HCSEG.

C-4. Bones Creek Reconstruction: The PNPTC, the HCSEG, SetonConstruction, and WOS bypassed 120 feet of culvert and



reconstructed the creek bed on Bones Creek in 1993. (Bones Creek is between Shine Creek andthe Hood Canal Bridge.)C-5. Chimacum Creek Habitat: WOS volunteers cleaned gravel beds in Chimacum Creek in

1993. WOS plans to place log weirs in Chimacum Creek to create turbulence and pools thatwill continuously clean the gravels downstream. In 1993 the NOSC funded work with theJCCD, WOS, and landowners to improve habitat in Chimacum Creek including streamfencing, placing rocks in the creek, and stream bank revegetation. In 1994, they plan tocreate resting "holes" for fish with woody debris and to construct additional fencing. TheConservation District will also be working with irrigators to improve system efficiency.

C-6. Chimacum Tributaries Habitat: In fall of 1994, WOS and OPF with funding from a Jobsfor the Environment grant, will plant trees and removing canary grass along Barnhouse,Putaansuu, and Naylors tributaries to Chimacum Creek.

• Naylors Creek: In 1993 WOS volunteers cleaned gravel beds inNaylors Creek tributary. In 1994 WOS, OPF, and Peace Treesproject with funding from a Jobs for the Environment grant willinstall large woody debris and an off-stream channel for Cohooverwintering on Naylors Creek.

• Putaansuu Creek: In 1993 WOS volunteers made necessarychanges to fish ladders to promote fish passage on the Putaansuutributary. WOS will also research and construct subsurfacedam-to-pool flows to increase rearing habitats for silver salmonfry. In 1994 WOS and OPF with funding from a Jobs for theEnvironment grant will repair log weirs and install "Perkinswatering troughs" to prevent stream bank erosion from cows.

C-7. Little Goose Creek Fish Passage: In 1993 WOS volunteers made changes to fish laddersto promote fish passage on Little Goose Creek, a tributary to Oak Bay.

C-8. Ludlow Creek Habitat and Fisheries Enhancement: WOS volunteers will remove debrisand wash gravels in Ludlow Creek in 1994. WOS will install and monitor in-stream salmonegg incubators.

C-9. Salmon Creek Fisheries Enhancement: WOS is currently working with the NOSC andWDFW to restore Salmon Creek early fall chum to historic levels. WOS will monitorremote site incubators and re-fit an existing hatchery facility to restore the



creek's near-endangered chum stock. Salmon Creek stocks may eventually be used torestock Chimacum Creek.

C-10. Salmon Creek Watershed Restoration: The USFS has planned road obliterations andforest thinning and pruning to encourage undergrowth in the upper Salmon Creekwatershed in 1994. The USFS also plans to improve fish passage on Salmon Creek.

C-11. Snow Creek Riparian Management: In 1994 the Forest Service plans to improve fishpassage through a culvert and has identified sites for tree pruning which will encourageundergrowth in the upper watershed.

C-12. Tarboo Creek Habitat Restoration: In 1993 WOS rebuilt fish ladders to promote fishpassage on Tarboo Creek. The JCCD worked to restore the original creek channel. WOSvolunteers worked with the JCCD to improve stream channel stability on a Tarbootributary, and will utilize a pond to provide rearing habitats for silver fry. In 1994 OPF andWOS with funding from a Jobs for the Environment grant will work with PNPTC, PopeResources, and Jefferson County Public Works to install weirs and repair a culvert toimprove fish passage.

C-13. Tarboo Creek Fisheries Enhancement: WOS installed and monitored remote siteincubators on Tarboo Creek in 1993.

C-14. Thorndike and Shine Creeks Habitat: WOS is currently working with Pope Resources,HCSEG, and PNPTC to restore fish habitat during timber harvest work on ThorndikeCreek. WOS volunteers have planned restorations to help chum salmon pass throughbeaver dams and reach spawning areas in the upper Thorndike watershed.

C-15. Thorndike and Shine Creeks Fisheries Enhancement: A captive broodstock programfor coho on Thorndike and Shine Creeks was initiated in 1993 to assist in rebuildingnatural coho stocks in the North Hood Canal. Cooperating organizations for the broodstockprogram are the PNPTC, USFWS, the HCSEG, WDFW, Long Live the Kings, and theNMFS. WOS volunteers installed and monitored remote site incubators on Thomdike andShine Creeks in 1993. In 1994 WOS volunteers will also monitor the chum eggs.



Inventory of Stream Flow DataThe amount of stream flow data for streams throughout the DungenessQuilcene area variesgreatly. Some streams, such as the Dungeness River have decades a€ continuous records whileother smaller creeks may have none or very little data. The following is not a complete inventoryof all flow measurements. Many dozens of unnamed or lesser-known creeks or tributaries are notincluded, even though miscellaneous flow measurements may have been taken at one time. Thissummary lists both historical and current flow data collection efforts for the larger streams whichwere included in DQ Project discussions.

Eastern Clallam County1. Bagely Creek: A small number of miscellaneous flow measurements on Bagely Creek were

taken by the USGS in the 1940's, 50's, and 60's. More consistent flaw measurements weretaken by Ecology from 1988 through 1991, primarily in the spring and summer months.There are no gaging efforts at present.

2. Bell Creek: Miscellaneous flow measurements an Bell Creek were taken by the USGS in theearly 1940's, 50's, 60's, and late 70's. More consistent flow measurements were taken byEcology from 1987 through 1991, primarily in the spring and summer months. There are nogaging efforts at present.

3. Casselary Creek: Miscellaneous flow measurements on Casselary Creek were taken by theUSGS in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. More consistent flaw measurements were taken both atthe mouth and just above at a farm by Ecology. Ecology recorded flaws April throughSeptember from 1986 through 1991. There are no gaging efforts at present.

4. Dean Creek: Peak flow data only was recorded monthly by the USGS from 1949 through1970. There are no gaging efforts at present.

5. Dungeness River: The Dungeness River has the most extensive data of any in the DQProject area. Dungeness River flow was continuously recorded from 1898 through 1902.Continuous gaging was recommenced in 1923 by the USGS above all diversions andcontinues to the present. Over 100 miscellaneous



measurements have been taken at various sites by the USGS from 1898 through 1979, byEcology from 1986 through 1991, and the JKT in 1992 and 1993. Also, many of thetributaries have been measured at various times. From August 1993 to May 1994, the USGSwith cooperative funding from the DQ Project, operated a second continuous gaging sitebelow all diversions at the Railroad Bridge Park. A staff gage will remain at the RailroadBridge site and USGS will measure flow there every other month until September 1994,funded by Ecology's Water Quality Program. Additional funding is needed to continuegaging efforts at the Railroad Bridge site.

6. Geirin Creek: Several miscellaneous flow measurements were taken on Gierin Creek by theUSGS in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. There are no gaging efforts at present.

7. Jimmy Come Lately Creek: A dozen flow measurements were taken on Jimmy ComeLately Creek by the USGS in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. Ecology took more consistent flowmeasurements from 1988 through 1992, primarily April through October. There are nogaging efforts at present.

8. Johnson Creek: Ecology took over 100 flow measurement on Johnson Creek from 1986through 1991, primarily April through October. Also, a couple of measurements were takenby the JKT in 1992. There are no gaging efforts at present.

9. Matriotti Creek: The USGS took a couple of flow measurements on Matriotti Creek in1978. Ecology took consistent flow measurements from 1986 through 1991, primarily fromApril through October. There are no gaging efforts at present.

10. McDonald Creek: The USGS took a total of several dozen flow measurements onMcDonald Creek at 4 different sites in the 1940's, 50's, 60's and 70's. Ecology took flowmeasurements from 1988 through 1991, April through October. There are no gaging effortsat present.

11. Meadowbrook Creek: The USGS took a small number of flow measurements onMeadowbrook Creek in the 1940's, 5Us, 60's, and 70's. Ecology took consistentmeasurements from 1986 through 1991, primarily April through October. There are nogaging efforts at present.

12. Siebert Creek: A continuous recording gage was operated by the USGS from 1952 through1969 on Siebert Creek. In addition, a



small number of miscellaneous flow measurements were taken by the USGS in 1949 and thelate '70's. Ecology took measurements from 1988 through 1991. There are no gaging effortsat present.

Eastern Jefferson County

13. Big Quilcene River: The USGS took a small number of miscellaneous flow measurementson the Big Quilcene River in the 1920's and in the '50's, and measured monthly peak flowfrom 1961 to 1968. The USGS operated a continuous gaging station for one year in 1971-72.Jefferson County took monthly flow measurements for a year in 1986-87, and again in1992-93. Penny Creek, a tributary to the Big Quilcene, was monitored for peak flows onlybetween 1949 and 1968. In July 1993 the USGS, with cooperative funding from the DQProject installed a staff gage on the Big Quilcene between the Hatchery diversion and thereturn flow, and a wire-weight gage was installed at the Hwy. 101 bridge just below the NFHatchery. The DQ Project cooperatively funded monthly flow measurements to calibrate thegages from July 1993 to January 1994. Hatchery personnel began ongoing daily readings ofthe two gages near the Hatchery in July. Additional funding is needed to continue the datacollection at the Hatchery diversion and at Hwy 101. In August 1993 the USGS, withcooperative funding from the DQ Project also installed a staff gage on the Big Quilceneabove the City of Port Townsend diversion to be read regularly by City personnel. USGStechnicians encountered difficulties measuring the flow at the gage location. The gage wasremoved and reinstalled at a different location January 1994. Funding is needed to continuecalibrating and maintaining the gage at the Port Townsend diversion.

14. Chevy Chase Creek: In June 1993 the USGS, with cooperative funding from the DQ Projectinstalled a staff gage on Chevy Chase Creek (a.k.a. Quimper Creek). WOS volunteers beganongoing collection of gage height data in June. USGS took flow measurements at the sitesmonthly from July 1993 through January 1994 to correlate gage height to stream flow for thevolunteers. In January 1994 JCCD, with funding from the Centennial Program began takingperiodic flow measurements and will continue through October 1994. In addition, volunteerswill record gage



height between JCCD visits. For the ongoing gage height readings to be useful in the future,additional flow measurements are needed to maintain gage-height/stream-flow relationshipsbeyond October 1994.

15. Chimacum Creek: The USGS took a small number of flow measurements on the mainstem, west fork, and east fork in the 1940's and 50's. The USGS also operated a continuousflow gage on the west fork from 1953 through 1958. Ecology took flow measurements onthe main stem and the west fork from 1986 through 1991. The JKT took severalmeasurements on the main stem and the west fork in 1992. In June 1993 the USGS, withcooperative funding from the DQ Project installed staff gages on Chimacum main stem atIrondale Road, and on the upper west fork at West Valley Road. WOS volunteers and JCCDbegan ongoing collection of gage height data. USGS took flow measurements at the sitesmonthly from July 1993 through January 1994 to correlate gage height to stream flow for thevolunteers. An additional flow measurement was taken by USGS in April 1994 to recalibrategage-height/stream-flow relationships after winter flooding. A third staff gage was installedon the lower west fork at Chimacum High School in September 1993 by the USGS forEcology's Water Quality Program. Chimacum High students and JCCDs began ongoingcollection of gage height data in September 1993. However funding was cut for flowmeasurements needed to correlate gage height to stream flow shortly after gage installation.For the ongoing stream height readings to be useful in the future, additional flowmeasurements are needed to maintain gageheight/stream-flow relationships.

16. Contractor's Creek: Ecology took flow measurements on Contractor's Creek from 1986until 1991. JCCD with funding from the Centennial Program installed a staff gage inJanuary 1994 on Contractor's Creek and will take periodic flow measurements onContractor's Creek from January through October of 1994. In addition, volunteers willrecord gage height between JCCD visits.

17. Donovan Creek: One flow measurement was taken on Donovan Creek by USGS in 1951.Ecology took several flow measurements a year from 1988 until 1991. Jefferson Countytook flow measurements for a year in 1986-87 and twice monthly in the winter of 1992-93.In June 1993 the USGS, with cooperative



funding from the DQ Project installed a staff gage on Donovan Creek, 2.5 miles North ofQuilcene. WOS volunteers began ongoing collection of gage height data in June. USGS tookflow measurements at the sites monthly from July 1993 to January 1994 and an additionalmeasurement in April 1994 to correlate gage height to stream flow for the volunteers. Forthe ongoing gage height readings to be useful in the future, additional flow measurementsare needed to maintain gage-height/stream-flow relationships.

18. Eagle Creek: Ecology took several flow measurements a year on Eagle Creek in 1986 andfrom 1988-91. JCCD with funding from the Centennial Program installed a staff gage inJanuary 1994 on Eagle Creek and will take periodic flow measurements from Januarythrough October of 1994. In addition, volunteers will record gage height between JCCDvisits.

19. Little Quileene River: The USGS took several flow measurements on the Little QuilceneRiver and several tributaries in 1925-26. The USGS operated a continuous flow gage for oneyear in 1926-27 and again from 1951-58. Ecology measured flows several times a year from1987-91. Jefferson County took flow measurements on both the main river and tributaryLeland Creek for a year in 1986-87 and on the main river for several months in the winter of1992-93. In April of 1994 the City of Port Townsend funded the USGS to install a staff gagebelow the City's diversion and to take monthly stream flow measurements to correlate thegage.

20. Ludlow Creek: The USGS took several flow measurements in 1952. Ecology took severalflow measurements a year from 198691. Jefferson County took flow measurements for oneyear in 1991-92. In June 1993 the USGS, with cooperative funding from the DQ Projectinstalled a staff gage on Ludlow Creek. WOS volunteers began ongoing collection of gageheight data in June. USGS took flow measurements at the sites monthly from July 1993 toJanuary 1994 to correlate gage height to stream flow for the volunteers. An additional flowmeasurement was taken by USGS in April 1994 to recalibrate gage-height/stream-flowrelationships after winter flooding. For the ongoing gage readings to be useful in the future,additional flow measurements will be needed to maintain the gage-height/stream-flowrelationship.



21. Salmon Creek: The USGS took several flow measurements on Salmon. Creek in 1952.Ecology took several measurements a year from 1986-91. In June 1993 the USGS withcooperative funding from the DQ Project installed a staff gage on Salmon Creek. WOSvolunteers began ongoing collection of gage height data in June. USGS took flowmeasurements at the sites monthly from July 1993 to January 1994 to correlate gage heightto stream flow for the volunteers. An additional flow measurement was taken by USGS inApril 1994 to recalibrate gage-height/stream-flow relationships after winter flooding. InJanuary 1994 JCCD with funding from the Centennial Program began taking periodic flowmeasurements on Salmon Creek and will continue through October 1994. In addition,volunteers will record gage height between JCCD visits. For the ongoing gage readings tobe useful in the future, additional flow measurements will be needed to maintaingage-height/streamflow relationships beyond October 1994.

22. Snow Creek: Snow Creek was continuously gaged by the USGS from 1953-73. WDFW hasoperated a continuous gaging station from 1977 to the present day. In addition to continuousgaging, Ecology took several flow measurements a year on both the main creek andtributary Andrews Creek from 1986-91. JCCD with funding from the Centennial Programinstalled a staff gage in January 1994 on Andrews Creek, a tributary to Snow Creek, andwill take periodic flow measurements from January through October of 1994. Volunteerswill record gage height between JCCD visits. Funding will be needed to continuemaintainance of the gage-height/stream-flow correlation.

23. Shine Creek: Jefferson County took measurements on Shine Creek for one year in 1991-92.In June 1993 the USGS with cooperative funding from the DQ Project installed a staff gageon Shine Creek. WOS volunteers began ongoing collection of gage height data in June.USGS took flow measurements at the sites monthly from July 1993 to January 1994 andagain in April 1994 to correlate gage height to stream flow for the volunteers. For theongoing gage height readings to be useful in the future, additional flow measurements willbe needed to maintain gage-height/streamflow relationships.

24. Tarboo Creek: The USGS took several measurements in 1951. Ecology took severalmeasurements a year from 1986-91.



Jefferson County measured flows for one year in 1986-87. In June 1993 the USGS withcooperative funding from the DQ Project installed a staff gage on Tarboo Creek. WOSvolunteers began ongoing collection of gage height data in June. USGS took flowmeasurements at the sites monthly from July 1993 through January 1994 and again in April1994 to correlate gage height to stream flow for the volunteers.. For the ongoing gage heightreadings to be useful in the future, additional flow measurements will be needed to maintaingage-height/stream-flow relationships.

25. Thorndike Creek: In June 1993 the USGS, with cooperative funding from the DQ Projectinstalled a staff gage on Thorndike Creek. WOS volunteers began ongoing collection ofgage height data in June. USGS took flow measurements at the sites monthly from July1993 through January 1994 and again in April 1994 to correlate gage height to stream flowfor the volunteers. For the ongoing gage height readings to be useful in the future, additionalflow measurements are needed to maintain gage-height/streamflow relationships.

Volume 1

Chapter 5

Regional Strategies& Recommendations

Regional Strategies! Recommendations 5.1

Chapter 5Regional Strategies ! Recommendations

General Background

The eastern parts of Jefferson and Clallam Counties were both included in the pilot project to testthe concept of water resource planning on a local level in a multi-jurisdictional setting. Althoughdeveloping a water resource plan for the entire region may make sense from an ecologicalviewpoint, it is often difficult for governments or individuals to work on such a large project,given defined budgets, timelines and personal priorities.l After the Regional Planning Groupworked together on issues for over a year, it was apparent that there were County-specific issuesand problems that needed to be worked on within each jurisdiction. Thus, the two County WorkGroups developed individual recommendations found in Chapters 6 and 7.

Through it all, the RPG found a commonalty of issues that could be jointly agreed upon anddeveloped strategies for those. This Chapter discusses the common ground and the strategies andrecommendations developed on a regional-basis. Consensus was reached by the RPG on theserecommendations.

The Characterization in Chapter 2 defines and describes the project area, including eachwatershed, sub-watershed and those areas outside of defined watersheds. Common to much ofthe region are the rainshadow conditions, though some areas fall outside its effects and receiveconsiderably more rain than the coastal edges. The ground waters and aquifers are contiguousand issues such as hydraulic continuity, as well as possible threats from pollution of seawaterintrusion or other human-induced causes are regional. The non-biological, political andgovernmental boundaries are not meaningful to wildlife or plant life, nor to water or theorganisms living in it. Thus, strategies and recommendations for conservation, and managementof habitat, flood plains, forest practices, fish, wildlife, and research and data have beendeveloped for the region.

____________________________1 See Chapter 15 for more on this issue.


5.2 Regional Strategies ! Recommendations

Regional Use of WaterR1 Use water from within the area, and keen the water resources within the region.

The Chelan Agreement says that water resource management decisions should beby hydrologic unit, and that "future conflicts will be reduced if water use needslocated in a hydrologic unit first be met from water resources within that unit."The RPG has taken that a step farther and strongly recommends that the waterneeds be met from within the area and that the water resources be kept withinthe region.

The GapR.2 A gap between biological requirements and out-of-stream uses is likely to persist

in perpetuity, but may be narrowed through a series of management actions.Through efficiency of use and restoration of habitat, the water resource needs ofboth human's use and natural ecosystems may be reduced.

Figure 5.1 (Wheeler) illustrates the concept (known as "the Gap") whichacknowledges that a discrepancy exists between the quantity of water needed foroptimal fish production and the needs of out-of-stream uses. On the right side theneeds of the fish are expressed by a recommended instream flow based on the IFIM,2and on the left is the present instream flow after withdrawals for agriculture,municipal, business and future growth needs. Currently the gap is substantial due thepoor condition of fish habitat, the lack of conservation, and the inefficiency of theirrigation delivery systems and other uses. Under the Gap strategy, the RegionalPlanning Group agrees to acknowledge that a discrepancy exists, is likely to continueindefinitely, and that to some extent the parties will have to live with it.

However, the parties also agree that the lines reflecting instream and out-of-streamneeds may be brought closer together through management actions including but notlimited to, conservation, negotiated increased instream flows, physical improvementsto the irrigation systems, and the shift to ground-water sources not in close hydrauliccontinuity with the river. Although the recommended instream flows (from the IFIMand toe width studies) may not change without major channel changes in the rivers orthe development of new methodologies for determining instream flows, the level offish productivity still may be increased substantially through habitat improvements.This would bring the right-hand line towards the center thus somewhat closing thegap.

____________________________2 See Chapter 6 Problem Definition 3 for an explanation of IFIM.



Figure 5.1 The Gap Concept



Shared SacrificeR.3 All beneficial uses of water will share the burdens and benefits of natural fluctuations in

the amount of stream flow annually available.

The concept of a flexible target for instream flows, originally developed for theDungeness (Schmidt, Seiter), but applicable across the region, is intended to addressnatural fluctuations in stream flows. Termed "shared sacrifice," its intent is to allowboth instream and out-of-stream needs to share the pain of water-short years and thegain of abundant years (share the pain, share the gain).

In the Dungeness River, shared sacrifice means that the irrigation community hasagreed to manage and limit the amount of water used during low-flow periods, and theTribe and Fish caucuses have agreed that lower-than optimum flows far salmonids areacceptable for an interim period. These agreements are predicated on immediatelyimplementing habitat restoration projects to improve conditions in the DungenessRiver. These improvements may provide mare available habitat for salmonids with lessinstream flow. A formula is needed to specify future uses and priorities of conservedwater between agriculture, instream flow, and residential use. Water requirements toaccommodate growth in agriculture over and above the recent land base must be metby conservation. Within 16 years, long-term conservation programs would attempt tosecure at least 100 cfs to remain instream when the flow exceeds 160 cfs (the annualaverage flow). During abundant water years, an ever greater proportion of the totalflow would remain instream.

In Jefferson County conflict exists between the needs of the fish resources and otherwildlife, and the growing demand for water in the County. The City of Part Townsend,the Port Townsend Paper Mill and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe are currentlynegotiating in an attempt to share the sacrifice on instream flows on the Big QuiiceneRiver.



ConservationR.4 Conservation is the most cost-effective way to extend limited water supplies for the

foreseeable future, and will need to become a way of life for every water user, andbe reflected in equipment, landscauin2, re-use and water use, and constructioncodes, rate structures and other measures.

Problem DefinitionThe following is a result of many discussions by DQ members on conservation,evolving from an early Conservation and Education Committee which produced anEducation Plan and a draft recommendation for a Conservation Plan (not adopted bygroup). The Jefferson County Work Group developed this statement for the region.

Water conservation is one of those unique public policies where incentives have beencreated and institutionalized to do the opposite of what is needed or wanted, or may bein the best interest of the community. As a result of early water management history,incentives have been inadvertently institutionalized and form a powerful disincentivefar protecting and conserving water, as exemplified in the "use it or lose it" concept ofwestern water law. This results in an arcane legal incentive which permeates allcurrent water policy, even to the detriment of the shared interests involved. Currentwater conservation rules provide a natural disincentive for all interests to save andprotect water supplies.

The risks to individual interests For the agricultural community current laws result in"use or lose" disincentives far water conservation that may result in cut backs or lossesof historic water rights. Far the environmental community, the risk lies with having"water savings" be used for further growth and development, which may create moreadverse impact to habitat and groundwater supplies. For local governmental entitiesconservation may mean trying to collect higher rates for the same or lower water use,much as the electrical utilities have had to do in the past decade of energyconservation. For business and industry, the real world incentive is maximum usewithdrawals rather than risk loosing today's supplies to future competitors for water.



Water conservation is the one thing that people do because they feel it is right. It canbe achieved only if a bigger, more long-term vision reflects the following:

• Equity for Future Users: A belief and value that fixture generations deserve tobe provided the same opportunity as the present to make their own future, and tohave resources available for their use and management.

• Risk Assessment: Because there are so many environmental unknowns, actionsshould minimize risks, conserve options, and attempt to fairly balancerisks/benefits among all current and future users.

• Share the Pain, Share the Gain: Equal pain and equal opportunity shouldprovide a system that ensures future water supplies.

• Safety Valve: Because the current knowledge base or management of watersystems are not infallible, water conservation provides the safety valve -- theassurance of some level of future supply, with a shared opportunity to reducefuture losses and protect maximum options and flexibility.

• Protection as a Better Investment than Restoration: With the current economicsand technology, ground-water restoration, desalination, and other high techstrategies to create new supplies are at best, very expensive, and currentlybeyond the reach of the local communities. The best policy is to protect allknown water supplies.

• Not Enough is Known about Water Management: Water management, asopposed to water use, is a new challenge for communities. Not enough is knownabout current water supplies -- recharge and hydrologic rates or continuity,groundwater availability, or surface supplies. The most conservative andreasonable approach is to develop and adopt a water conservation plan for thecommunities involved.

Definition of Water ConservationConservation, by definition includes uses as defined by RCW 98.54.120 as well aswithdrawal efficiencies, instream strategies and recharge. Water conservation asdefined by the RPG means keeping water where it is, reducing its use, using itefficiently and reusing it when possible with the belief that there is no such thing as"waste water."

Conservation Goats1. To manage water conservation based on hydrological cycles and ecosystem

principles. It is not enough to only look at the end of "water tap" use asconservation. The entire hydrologic cycle must be considered for interaction andevery opportunity for wise use. It is also recognized that the current economicanalysis does not accurately reflect the true cost of today's water management.



Recognizing that water conservation must be done on a watershed basis allows us towork with management considerations and options including:

• wetland restoration to hold and/or slow down flood water for recharge;• potential impacts of habitat restoration and enhancement;• timing and management of instream withdrawals;• ground-water withdrawals and recharge impacts;• impacts of stormwater, impervious surfaces and runoff;• new techniques such as gravel filters, retention and storage; and reuse of effluent.

2. To satisfy our current or future surface water needs within our current waterrights, without new or additional water rights, by using conservation andachievable technology.

R4.I Conservation and efficiency strategies should be developed and implementedregion-wide to provide the most efficient use of all water resources. The Chelanpolicies and recommendations and DQ recommendations should provide guidance for thefuture development of regional water conservation policies. Specifically they should beused as guidance and be incorporated into the GMA and Coordinated Water SystemPlanning for the region.

8.4.2.1 Develop a comprehensive regional water conservation plan that makes allusers responsible for conservation.

8.4.2.2 Develop a system to prioritize water uses for times of critical need.Establish an emergency water conservation program for all users underextreme drought conditions to be used by the City, the Public UtilityDistrict and the County, and for voluntary use under all other conditionsincluding cost/benefit aspects.

8.4.2.3 Monitor the use of surface and ground water, as affordable anddependable technology becomes available.

8.4.2.4 Establish principles for all users throughout the area including:a. Strategies for education and increased public awareness to encourage

voluntary conservation, as the primary responsibility of all managers.b. Targets for water conservation for each user group including achievable

technology.d. Conservation and reduction goals, considering "targeting" by user groups

and including consideration of all water sources.e. A regional water modeling and monitoring system developed to avoid a

water crisis in a low-water year. It should provide for an early



warning system and a series of management options; projectionsshould be done and thresholds established for use in times ofcritical low water/drought to alert the region before a water crisisoccurs.

8.4.5.5 Public entities should pursue and provide demonstration or modelprojects to encourage conservation and reuse. Government grants andprograms (State and local) should be sought for surface and ground-water planning, and integration of implementation activities.

8.4.2.6 Enforce new construction standards on plumbing fixtures.8.4.2.7 Encourage utilities to develop incentives for retrofits for all pre-existing

housing offered for sale which meet new water conservation standardsfor both residential and commercial water users;

8.4.2.8 Petition the State to define "conservation" to promote incentives farefficiency (e.g. no taxes on incentives for conservation like a rebateprogram);

8.4.2.9 Draft specific measures to be used to conserve in water-short areas,including gray water on plants, using native and xerophytic plants,installing low-water-use equipment and facilities for all users; andrequiring special conservation measures for new and existing golfcourses.

8.4.2.10 Establish a water resource conservation education program including"life-style" changes;

8.4.2.11 Investigate opportunities for using recharge fees, incentives forsaving, and buyback programs.

8.4.2.12 Assess the economics of water conservation strategies including rates,time, "pay back," timelines, and the condition/place of used water.

Legal MechanismsR.5 Existing irrigation water right holders will seek legal mechanisms to transfer

conserved water to instream flows through leasing, relinquishment or TrustWater Rights. Established under a 1991 provision in Water Law (RCW 90.42),Water Resources Management, an innovative mechanism for temporary or permanenttransfer of water rights is called the Trust Water Rights Program (TWR), and is to beadministered through the Department of Ecology. Though as yet untested (1994), theTrust is a mechanism for a voluntary change in water allocations which may provide ameans to eliminate "paper rights" and change the purpose of use, while maintainingthe priority date of the original water right. The Water Users, the Tribe, and theDepartment of Ecology are seriously exploring this option as a means to both protectwater rights and provide much-needed increases to instrearn flows.



Ground Water

R.6 The Regional Planning Group believes that around water has the most potentialas a residential and municipal source and further technical investigations shouldbe implemented. Ground water is a limited and variable resource which mar bedepleted or replenished. Maintaining its quantity and quality depends uponmaintaining the balance between recharge and outflow/withdrawals. See Chapters 6and 7 for County-specific recommendations on ground water.

R.6.1 The volume of surface and ground water used should be limited throughcomprehensive conservation programs, including provisions for emergencyrestrictions on use, and design standards promoting efficiency.

R.6.2 Community wells should be metered and selected wells should bemonitored to calculate total ground-water withdrawals from the regionand avoid the mining of ground-water resources.

R.6.3 The Regional Planning Group encourages the use of community watersystems instead of individual wells.

R.6.4 Municipal and residential water supplies should be directed to locationsand depths so as to minimize the risk of hydraulic continuity.

R.6.5 Hydraulic continuity and irrigation conservation: It is acknowledged thatthe impacts on ground water from irrigation conservation may not bepredictable until implemented. Because of concern over the effects ofirrigation conservation measures on wetlands, small streams and the shallowaquifer, the RPG called a series of meetings with local and State biologists, theTribes, agricultural water users and other interested members. The DQ GIS wasused to portray the over-lapping impacts of the irrigation system in ClallamCounty on the wetlands and streams in the Sequim-Dungeness basin. Aninformal analysis was performed on hydraulic continuity and the possibleresults of conservation measures on the ground-water and wetland resources.Although the RPG agrees that it is vital to implement serious irrigationconservation measures, the Water Users Association will not accept theresponsibility for the impacts of conservation practices on wetlands, smallstreams or ground water.



R.6.6 Mimic Nature: In order to achieve a net gain in productive biologicalcapacity without artificial influence from the irrigation system, existingand potential development should incorporate components to allowrecharge and runoff to wetlands, small streams and ground water. TheRPG agreed that wetlands serve important functions for recharge, waterretention and habitat. With water use efficiency and conservation, someexisting wetlands will probably be changed, but may not necessarily changenegatively in terms of maintaining diverse biological functions. It was alsoagreed that conservation measures should proceed carefully, coupled withhabitat restoration, in all cases with an emphasis on mimicking nature.Long-term monitoring must accompany these changes recognizing the need tolearn from the results for future management efforts. The importance of theeducational value of this effort was acknowledged.

StorageR.7 No lame on-river storage is proposed due to habitat concerns, cost effectiveness,

and lack of demonstrated need. Storage was discussed early as an option to regulateflows and provide water during critical times on the Dungeness River. Options forsmall scale storage to assist irrigation management are presented in the Montgomeryreport on irrigation ditch leakage. The potential for ofd channel storage to assistmunicipal fire protection reserves is also being considered.



Wetland & Riparian Habitats, Rivers & Small Streams3

The RPG realizes the ecological importance of wetlands and the immediate relationship ofthese aquatic systems to both water quantity and quality. While emphasis throughout theproject has been primarily on instream flows, the importance of wetland systems, be theymarine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine or palustrine, has been acknowledged. Because oflimited time, emphasis has not been placed on lengthy discussions or recommendationsspecifically aimed at these habitats, although it is believed that the followingrecommendations are appropriate to protect and enhance aquatic systems, and thus thewater resources of the project area.

Estuarine wetlands and marine environments were included in the original project studyarea. Because of the main intent of the Chelan Agreement and the RPG emphasis of the DQwork has been primarily on river systems. While the RPG recognizes that estuaries are avital part of river systems, and often the most endangered component in the aquaticecosystem, time constraints have not allowed any serious discussions of estuarine or marineenvironments related to water resources. This does not in any way diminish their importancerelated to water resources, and estuaries and marine edges need to be included on the"unfinished agenda " for future emphasis of concern.4

R.8 It is recognized that rivers (including small streams), riparian and wetland habitats areimportant to the hydrologic functions of the basin. In all management actions, striveto retain (maintain) or restore structural and functional characteristics of river,riparian and wetland habitats which are important to native and wild fish andwildlife. These characteristics include habitat connectivity, vegetation diversity interms of age, plant species composition and layers, vegetative vigor, abundance ofsnags and woody debris, natural rather than human-induced disturbance, and irregularshape width and depth. Because these habitats affect and are affected by managementactivities in upland areas, upland area activities should be conducted in a mannerwhich addresses wetland and riparian area impacts, including adverse impacts fromprior upland use.

R-8.1 Identify rivers, riparian corridors and wetlands according to theirimportance as habitat, and for wildlife and fish values, hydrologicrecharge and storage (flood control), and aesthetic and recreationalvalues. Develop and implement a Strategic Wetland Information System inJefferson County to identify, map and protect wetlands.

___________________________3 Throughout this section the term "river" includes small streams.4 See further comments on Wetlands from the Environmental Caucus in Appendix E.



R.8.2 Determine the hydrological needs of native and wild fish stocks and work to refinethe USFWS/Hiss study's recommended instream flow levels; enhance flows asdetermined by the hydrologic needs of wild fish.

R.8.3 Protect and maintain or enhance, and in some cases, restore those areas with highvalues and functions as development occurs to provide the structural and functionalintegrity of river, riparian and wetland habitat, water quality and quantity, and floodcontrol functions, as a part of long-term habitat management of the region. River, riparianand wetland habitats presently in good condition should receive the highest priority forprotection.

R.8.4 Follow the federally defined Mitigation Hierarchy, to protect wetlands and otheraquatic habitat. Impacts should be approached in this order: 1) avoid impacts, 2)minimize impacts, 3 recd negative impacts, and 4) compensate for impacts.

R.8.5 Condition land use activities such as newly established agriculture and grazing,logging, road and stream crossings, recreation, and urban and suburbandevelopment to protect and provide wetland and riparian area functions and values.

R.8.6 Identify and study degraded river, riparian and wetland habitat conditions causedby both natural and human impacts. Assess, maintain, restore and monitor habitatvalues and related impacts on native and wild fish, by watershed and stream, to determinethe needs for these fish resources.

R.8.7 Develop a management plan to increase the values and functions of the habitat andto make better use of the existing water resources.

R.8.8 Explore the following management strategies for rivers, wetlands and riparianhabitats:a. Managing by watershed;b. Options for yearly management scenarios;c. Based on an improved biological criteria, maintaining a flexible approach to setting

instream flows, to a lank at yearly adjustments needed to set appropriate instreamflow numbers.



Flood Plain ManagementR.9 Protect and in some cases restore flood plain and estuarine habitat to provide

functions and values necessary for native and wild or hatchery fish and otherwildlife resources, as well as provide protection for life, safety and property. Agradual evolution away from flood plain development and occupation and impacts onthe ecosystem should be the goal.

Using the FEMA delineation of the flood plains the following is recommended:6

R.9.1 Discourage future development in the flood plain. (In Clallam County,refer to the Floodplain Ordinance regarding these regulations.) Review,update and strengthen Clallam and Jefferson County Floodplain Ordinances tomake sure they are adequate to protect natural floodplain functions.

R9.2 East Clallam County: Continue to implement the Dungeness RiverComprehensive Flood Management Plan7 and begin implementation of theDungeness River Area Watershed Management Plan8 and link them torevisions to the County Comprehensive Plan9 and the DQ plan. Plansdirected at flood control and non-point source pollution have been developedfor the Dungeness River during the last five years but have yet to been fullyimplemented. These plans contain overlapping recommendations with theDungeness-Quilcene plan which would assist in habitat and river managementefforts. Comprehensive planning is also proceeding concurrent with the GrowthManagement Act and should be linked to other regional resource protectionmeasures.

_______________________________________5 See Glossary for definition of flood plain.6 In Jefferson County, the FEMA delineation of the Big Quilcene floodplain should be

re-evaluated using the FEMA criteria.7 Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc. for Clallam County Public Works. Dungeness River

Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan. December 1990.8 Dungeness Watershed Management Committee and Clallam County Dept. of Community

Development-Water Quality. Dungeness River Area Watershed Management Plan. May1993.

9 Clallam County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance 175, Title 31, December 28, 1982, AmendedOctober 5, 1993.



R.9.3 East Jefferson County: Implement the Big Quilcene Watershed AnalysisRecommendations,10 and the watershed action plans (Discovery Bay,"QuilcenelDabob Bays,t2 Ludlow Watershed13 and link them to the CountyComprehensive Plan, the FEMAT planning and the DQ Plan.

River riparian corridor

10 Big Quilcene River Basin Local Interagency Team. Big Quilcene River Basin PreliminaryWatershed Assessment. April 1994.11 In process: Jefferson County, Conservation District and Cooperative Extension.12 Quilcene/Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee and Jefferson County PlanningDepartment.13 Quilcene/Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan. April 1991. is Ludlow Watershed

Management Committee and Jefferson County Water Quality Program. Preliminary DraftLudlow Watershed Action Plan. March 1992.



Forest Practices

R.10 Evaluate the cumulative impacts of forest practices to short- and lone-termregional hydrology, especially related to at-risk native and wild fish stocksincluding anadromous species. While timber harvest on State and Federal lands hasbeen reduced substantially from the previous decade, cumulative effects resulting frommultiple forest practices over time have resulted in changes in watershed, riparian andchannel conditions. Concerns over reduced salmonid stocks and degraded habitat andriver hydrology have prompted calls for a new approach. Ecosystem and watershedanalyses planning and regulatory processes are currently being designed and/orimplemented at the State (Department of Natural Resources) and Federal (FEMAT,US Forest Service and US Fish & Wildlife Service) levels. Forest practices on Federal,State and private lands should retain, restore and protect those processes and landforms and promote high quality habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic andriparian-dependent organisms.

8.10.1 Coordinate watershed analyses processes with all agencies, so that there isnot duplication or segregation of efforts but rather integration of staff andprograms. A complete analysis of the entire watershed including Federal, Stateand private lands, should be the goal, with consistency the result of thiscooperation.

8.10.2 These agencies should make a high priority a comprehensive ecosystem-based watershed analyses that addresses the goals of the DQ Planningarea. Analyses should be conducted in those watersheds where there aresuspected water quantity and quality concerns, fish stocks at risk or otherconcerns expressed by the Regional Planning Group or the public.

8.10.3 Include in the watershed analyses, at a minimum, an analysis of the historicalconditions of the watershed (riparian channel conditions, stream flows, speciespresence, population sites, etc.) in order to set meaningful target conditions forrestoration and recovery.

8.10.4 The Port Townsend U.S.D.A: Forest Service cooperative watershedmanagement agreement should be considered as a model for other basinsin the planning area. (See Chapter 7, J.5.7 for a description of thisagreement.)



TABLE 5.1 The Status of Salmon Stocks in the Northeastern Olympic Peninsula(NOP) Compared to the Statewide Status Inventory. Summary Table.14

(From WDF et al. 1993).

Status Number ofStocks in

NOP

% Stocks inNOP

Number ofStocks

Statewide

% of TotalStocks

StatewideCritical 5 20% 12 3%Depressed 11 44% 122 28%Health 5 20% 187 43%Unknown 4 16% 113 26%

NOP includes streams from the Dungeness River to the Dosewallips River in the northeasterncorner of the Olympic Peninsula.

3 of the 5 healthy stocks are in the Dosewallips River which is near the edge of the rainshadow.

___________________________

14 Lichatowich. The Status of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the Streams of Eastern JeffersonCounty, Washington. 1993.



Fish ManagementR.11 To maintain, protect, restore and enhance native and wild fish stocks including

critical, high potential of becoming/being critical, depressed and healthy stocks ofsalrnonids in the river the following recommendations are made: Table 5.1illustrates the status of salmonids in the northeastern Olympic Peninsula compared tothe statewide status inventory. To understand the categories anddesignations/definitions of fish stocks, refer to Chapter 7, Problem Definition for StockStatus Categories Defined and to the Glossary.

8.11.1 Protect and in some cases restore salmonid habitat to provide functionsand values necessary for native and wild, and hatchery fish. A diverse androbust population of native and wild salmonids should be the goal. Salmonidhabitat is defined as:

The physical environment (stream, rivers, bays and estuaries and the ocean)into which salmonids are born, and where they rear, mature, and reproduce.Salmonid habitat use varies with life history stage. They reproduce (spawn) infreshwater, their off-spring rear for varying periods in freshwater prior tomigration and maturation in saltwater, and as adults they return to freshwaterto spawn, die and begin the cycle again. For a more complete description ofhabitat and its importance to salmonids, see Appendix D. For a more completedescription of each major salmonid stock's life cycle, see the regionalCharacterization in Chapter 2.

R.11.2 The proposed Watershed Councils, in association with the proposed adhoc Habitat Work Group should be involved in implementation of thefollowing approach to the management of native and wild, and hatcheryfish habitat and management:

8.11.2.1 Manage harvest levels: determine impacts of terminal vs. mixed-stockfishing, and analyze "high tech" fishing techniques on native stocks;regulate annual and in-season catches to provide protection, restorationand enhancement of critical and depressed stocks.

8.11.2.2 Analyze hatchery impacts: analyze impacts and cumulative effects ofhatchery operations on native and wild fish stocks, and manage fish toprotect and provide for wild salmonids and other fish species. a. Fishmanagement actions should reflect the need to protect and rebuildstocks while instream flow and habitat improvement projects



are implemented. International, Federal, State and Tribal fishmanagers should work with the proposed Watershed Council toanalyze present hatchery and harvest management practices.

b. Initiate the use of, and continue if warranted, artificial propagationfor stocks in jeopardy of extinction as recommended by fisheriesbiologists.

Wildlife ManagementWildlife habitat related to water resources has been defined as waters of the State used byfish, other aquatic life and wildlife, for any life history, stage or activity. 85% or more ofwildlife is either directly or indirectly dependent upon the fresh and marine waters, and thatdependence requires preservation and conservation of the quality and quantity of thesupporting water resources. Loss, degradation and pollution of aquatic systems is directlyresponsible for the loss of diversity of wildlife species. Although the RPG's direct focus wasnot on wildlife, as a component of the entire ecosystem of which water is a critical element,the survival requirements of wildlife must be considered in a comprehensive water resourcesplan.15

R.12 Wildlife is recognized as an important component of the bioregional ecosystemand should receive protection on both the local and State level.

8.12.1 Because wildlife is an essential component of the ecosystem, encourage andsupport the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife in its mandate toprovide ample protection for wildlife in the State.

8.12.2 In the DQ area, support efforts to establish wildlife habitat areas and tomaintain intact greenspace corridors which wilt allow protection of water-related habitats and ecosystems.

8.12.3 Vigorously support the Public Benefit Rating System16 and market it tomaximize opportunities for private property owners to preserve habitatcorridors and greenspaces. (See Clallam County's Open SpaceOrdinance.)

_________________________15 See further comments on Wildlife from the Environmental Caucus, Appendix E.16 The Public Benefit Rating System is defined in the Glossary.



Figure 5.2 Estuarine wetlands on Indian Island at Oak Bay.



WILD and SCENIC RIVERS

Federal Wild and Scenic Designation protection is one of many toolsavailable for river protection. To qualify, a river segment must befree-flowing and have one or mare "outstandingly remarkable" values.These include: scenery, recreation, geology, fisheries, wildlife, historyand cultural.

3 Classifications of Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wild is the equivalent of a wilderness river. Generally, only the uppersection of Olympic Peninsula rivers inside the National Park ordesignated wilderness are eligible for "wild" status.Scenic rivers are largely primitive with some evidence of development.This includes road access, cabins, smaller clear cuts, and agriculture.Recreational rivers must simply be undammed and still have anoutstandingly remarkable value.Wild and Scenic designation is not appropriate on all river sections, butwhere there are outstandingly remarkable values, it is the strongestprotection available to protect the river and its values.

Private Property Rights UnderWild and Scenic Designation

Wild and Scenic designation only allows regulation affectinggovernment land with little, if any, effect an private properly. Section6(b) specifically prohibits land condemnation for fee if greater than 50%of the riverside is publicly owned. This is true of all Olympic Peninsulariver segments currently being considered for Wild and Scenicdesignation.

A common misconception that the designation would force reversionback to a "primitive" riverside environment is not true. In reality, theintent of the Wild and Scenic designation is to keep the rivers the waythey are at the time of the designation. How the river section is classifiedat the time of the designation will also prescribe how the river sectionwould continue to be managed.

Thanks to the Olympic Rivers Council for this information.



RecreationR.13 The RPG agrees that water-dependent or water-related recreation is a beneficial

use of water. Many recreational activities need water. The use of water may be eithernonconsumptive, for example simply viewing of rivers or wetlands, or consumptive asit is with gardening or golf. Recreation uses, as with other beneficial uses, must beresponsible to conserve water and to preserve good water quality. The consumptionof water for recreation use must share in any sacrifice strategv mandated forlow-flow periods. The following recommendations were developed by the RecreationCaucus, and have been accepted by consensus by the RPG.

8.13.1 Wild and Scenic Designation: Designate the Dungeness/Greywolf Riversdown to Forest Service boundary as Wild and Scenic Rivers.17 Thisdesignation would help protect habitat. The Forest Service is already managingthe land under Wild and Scenic requirements, but it is recommended that theformal designation be pursued to protect the river corridor. Protected would bea 1/4th mile stretch on either side of the river within the designated area, andhydroelectric dams or major diversions would be prohibited.

In order to be designated a Wild and Scenic River requires that 1) the river befree-flowing, and 2) it has at least one "outstandingly remarkable value" (fromamong nine possible candidates). The Dungeness/Greywolf Rivers clearly meetthese two criteria above the diversions due to the anadromous fish present andscenic values. This designation would not change how the river is used in anyway below the Forest Service boundary. Water Rights would in no way beaffected nor is hunting or fishing changed in any way.

R.13.2 Access: Provide access to the lower Dungeness River and the lower BigQuilcene River on clearly designated lands that will not interfere withland owners. Point access is a particularly important issue for fishers, boaters,and shell fishers. Small-scale access areas are envisioned, usable by thephysically handicapped. All development should be consistent with habitatprotection and restoration management plans.

________________________17 Several caucuses originally had hoped to secure consensus for Wild and Scenic status

down to the first diversion, as the Forest Service had recommended in its 1990 OlympicForest Plan. However, we were able to get consensus on Wild and Scenic status onlydown to the Forest Service boundary.



8.13.3 The RPG supports projects such as the Railroad Bridge Park and theRainshadow Natural Science Foundation's proposed interpretive center onthe Dungeness River as examples of opportunities that will provide publicaccess to the river and education to the public on riverine habitat andstewardship. Also supported are Clallam County's and the Tribe's efforts toobtain public land along the Dungeness River, as well as the work of theOlympic Peninsula Land Trust. On the Big Quilcene River, a new opportunityfor access should be developed through the recently-acquired WashingtonDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife lands at the mouth of the river.

8.13.4 Both Counties and Cities should find funding mechanisms to takeadvantage of opportunities for public access to rivers, streams and lakes,and to involve the public in hearings on public access.

8.13.5 Develop riverside management plans to improve the habitat and naturalappearance of the river banks below the Wild and Scenic boundary on theDungeness River, and on the Big Quilcene and other rivers in the region. Agood example is the 1990 Olympic National Forest Plan which includesmanagement prescriptions for all the streams that flow through the ForestService land. 18 Downstream of the Forest Service boundaries, both Jeffersonand Clallam Counties should work with property owners to improve the habitatalong the lower river corridors, as with the Greenway Project on the DungenessRiver. As part of the management plans, assessments of biological, physical,cultural and scenic resources should be continued and developed to provide forcompatibility of uses with resource values, including wild and native fish.

___________________________18 "Management Prescription A4A - Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers" and "Management

Prescription A4B - River Corridors." U. S. Forest Service. Land and Resource ManagementPlan. 2990.



813.6 Develop an educational program to encourage responsible use of our riversand other sources of recreation. A considerable number of goals and actionsin habitat stewardship have been presented in the DQ Education Plan thatshould be supported and implemented. 19 Especially, implement #4 Programsfor Realtors, New Residents and Visitors which mentions recreators as a targetaudience.

A good example of conservation of water related to recreation is given in theBest Management Practices (BMPs) for Golf Courses Development andOperation written by the King County Environmental Division, January 1993.Local County and City governments within the Pilot area should adopt similarwater conservation and water quality BMPs, tailored to local climateconditions. This is especially important if conversion of land from agriculturaluse results in an increase in water usage.

Hydrologic Research and Data ManagementR.14 Future hydrogeologic research is critical to the future stewardship, allocation and

management of the water resources of the region. Complete recommendations arein Chapter 4, Information Resources.

R14.1 Complete a water resources study, because additional information isneeded for long-term decision making in the DQ region.

R14.2 Include water quality and quantity data management as an essentialelement of on-going water management and land use planning.

R14.3 Build funding for technical investigations into the rate structure of alllarge regional water purveyors.

19 see Appendix C, Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Planning Project: PreliminaryEducation Plan.

Volume 1

Chapter 6

Water Use

East Clallam County ! DungenessWatershed Recommendations

East Clallam County Recommendations 6.1

Chapter 6East Clallam County !Dungeness

Watershed Recommendations

This Chapter reflects issues specific to Clallam County and strategies and recommendationsmade by the Clallam County Work Group of the Regional Planning Group. Unless indicatedconsensus was reached by this group on the recommendations in Chapter 6. Refer to Chapter 5,General Background for a discussion on how the RPG worked on the issues arilrecommendations.

Problem DefinitionGoals 3 and 4 of the Regional Planning Group express the community's desire to achieve therestoration of native and wild fish resources in the Dungeness River while preserving a viableagricultural industry and life-style. These goals result from severe physical, ecological and legalproblems which are now evident in the Dungeness River system. Major areas of concern includecritical and depressed runs of salmon and steelhead, degraded fish habitat, insufficient instreamflows, the gap between water rights and water availability, and the alterations which almost 100years of irrigation have made to the ecosystem and social system of the Sequim-Dungenessregion. The region is in a state of transition from the agricultural past to a land use dominated byresidential and retirement communities, creating different water needs and constraints.

1. The condition of fish resources in the Dungeness River is severely degraded Twocritical stocks may be at risk of extinction, the Dungeness River (Lower) pink andDungeness spring/summer chinook salmon. Stocks with a high potential ofbecoming/being critical are Upper Dungeness pinks, the Dungeness summer steelhead andthe Dungeness winter steelhead. The Dungeness coho is listed as depressed.l Lower riverpink salmon have numbered only a few hundred in the last few years, while chinook havenumbered 300 or less fish since 1986.2 Biologists note a number of

_______________________State of Washington, Dept. of Fisheries, Dept. of Wildlife, Western WA Treaty Indians. SASSI.1992 & Memorandum. October 1993. Jim Lichatowich. Dungeness River Fink and ChinookSalmon Historical Abundance, Current Status, and Restoration. Revised October 1993.


6.2 East Clallam County Recommendations

factors contributing to a decline including degraded habitat, hatchery practices,insufficient instream flows, changes in the ocean resources and commercial fishingactivities. Table 6.1 shows the status of stock in the DQ Project area. Table 6.2illustrates fish utilization in streams in Clallam County. Refer to Chapter 7, StockStatus Categories Defined, and the Glossary for definitions of stock status.

Table 6.1 Status of Stocks in Eastern Clallam County (WDF et al., 1993)3

Stream Coho Chum Pink Chinook Steelhead CuthroatTrout

McDonald,Siebert, Bagel

Depressed Late -Unknown

nn run Winter -Depressed

SpecialConcern**

Dungeness River Depressed Unknown Lower - CriticalUpper -PotentiallyCritical*

Critical SummerandWinter -PotentiallyCritical*

SpecialConcern**

Jimmycomelately,Johnson, Gierin

Depressed Summer -Depressed

nm nm Winter -Unknown

SpecialConcern**

nn Not Mentioned* Recommended changes for 1994 SASSI** Nehlsen et al., 1991

Table 6.2 Salmon Utilization in Eastern Clallam County3 (Williams et al., 1975)Field work has shown that there are salmonids in other creeks besides what is listed below in the"streams catalog." No updated listing is available. Cutthroat, steelhead, and other fish stockspossibly using many of these creeks were not included in the stream catalog.

Stream Salmon UtilizationSiebert, Bagley Coho, Chum,McDonald Coho, Chum, ChinookMatriotti, Meadowbrook, Hurd Coho, ChumDungeness River Coho, Chum, Pink, ChinookCassalery, Gierin, Bell, Johnson,Jimmycomelately, Dean

Coho, Chum

____________________________3 See Lichatowich for further descriptions.


2. The lower nine miles of the mainstem Dungeness River have extremely degraded andunstable habitat. Natural, on-going geologic conditions coupled with upstream erosionfrom human activities have caused large amounts of sediment to be deposited in the lowerriver. Some streamside development has altered natural overflow channels and causedinstability. This has probably increased braiding of the channel with high levels of bedloadmovement, and created a severely unstable environment unsuitable for fish needs.Constrictions to the channel from several bridges inhibit the river's ability to move gravelout. In addition, the County, the Army Corp. of Engineers and landowners along !,the shoreline have installed rip rap and dikes to control flooding, and have removed largetrees resulting in a major loss of productive fish habitat. The private ownership status of Ithe Dungeness River channel also makes it difficult to implement habitat improvement orchannel stabilization projects.4

Dungeness River

4 The Dungeness River is one of the few rivers in the nation with private ownership extendingto the mid-line of the river. In most states, the river itself is public land.



3. Instream flows are insufficient to support fish resources An instream flow study usingthe Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) was conducted by the U. S. Fish andWildlife Service.5 See Figure 6.5 at the end of this Chapter for the recommended flows.Recommendations released in 1993 indicate that a minimum instream flow of 180 cfs. ormore for the Dungeness River is advised in the late summer, primarily to accommodatechinook and pink salmon. This is based on the present degraded habitat. A comparison ofactual instrearn flows to the IFIM findings shows that in recent low-flow years, 60 to 80percent of the total flow has been diverted, and as little as 10% of the needed flow forchinook spawning has been available in the reach of the river below diversions.6 Conditionsand factors outside of instream flow could and may make it difficult to attain the levels ofproduction that existed in earlier times. It is hoped that habitat improvements may reducethe instream flow requirements to approach favorable conditions in the river for fishproduction. Figure 4 illustrates the increase in chinook spawning habitat as the amount offlow rises. At about 100 cfs. the sharp increase starts to level off, and optimum spawningarea is reached at about 180 cfs.

________________________________________5 Philip Wampler and Joseph Hiss. Fish Habitat Analysis for the Dungeness River Using the

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WesternWashington Fishery Resource Office. July 1991.

IIFIM DEFINED

IFIM stands for Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. It is atool for assessing the requirements of all fish in a stream. Thepurpose of the IFIM study was to establish a relationship betweenstream flow and usable habitat for different life stages of pink,coho and chinook salmon, steelhead and dolly varden in theDungeness River. The relationship between "weighted usablearea" (WUA) used to indicate habitat, and stream flow variesbetween species and between life stage of a single species. TheIFIM uses a series of detailed measurements taken along anumber of transects at each study reach. The study focused onthose life stages and seasons where flows appear to be a criticalbottleneck reducing production of anadrornous salmonids in theDungeness River. The IFIM does not measure other factorscontributing to fish production such as cover, food, predation and


6 Joseph Hiss and Jim Lichatowich. Executive Summary of the Dungeness River IFIM Study.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office. September 1990.

Figure 6.1 Increase in Chinook Spawning Area for GivenInstream Flow's

_____________________________7 From information in: Joseph Hiss. Recommended Instream Flows for the Lower Dungeness

River. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office. May1993.



4. Water rights exceed actual flows and biological recommendations A total of 581cubic feet per second (cfs.) have been given out in water rights in the DungenessRiver, with the majority for irrigation, while the average flow in late August to earlySeptember is 187 to 227 cfs., dropping to as low as 100 cfs. in the first half ofSeptember, and even less in the early fall (W. Clark). All of the water rights wereadjudicated by the State Superior Court in 1924 based on .02 cfs. per acre.Withdrawals for agriculture have been necessary because the Sequim-Dungeness areais in the Olympic mountains` rainshadow and experiences very dry summers. In orderto grow crops, the early residents formed five irrigation companies and four irrigationdistricts and have organized under the Dungeness River Agricultural Water UsersAssociation (Water Users).8 The water taken from the river is used for irrigation, stockwater and domestic use.

Figure 6.2 summarizes the relationship between the average flow, biologicalrecommendations, the average amount used in agriculture and the amount ofadjudicated water rights. The allowed withdrawal exceeds the mean monthly flow forall but one month of the year. Biological recommendations also exceed mean monthlyflows for most of the year, a possible reflection on the degraded state of the habitat andchannel instability in the lower river. No minimum instream flow has been establishedin the Dungeness, and if one were set now, it would be junior to the other users.

Discussions on the Dungeness River

____________________________8 Dungeness River Agricultural Water Users Association: This non-profit association was

created as the purveyors of irrigation water in the Sequim-Dungeness area; it is comprised ofrepresentatives from nine irrigation companies and districts.



Figure 6.2 Dungeness River Mean Monthly Flows & RecommendedInstream Flows



5. Actual water use by irrigation districts and companies is substantially less thanadjudicated water rights, and is not manned on a seniority basis Despite theentitlement to 571 cfs. by the irrigation districts and companies, (out of the total of 581in adjudicated rights) the average total diversion among all 9 main ditches is 144 to11(1 cfs. during the irrigation season.9 Obviously the Dungeness River would havebeen dewatered if most of the districts and companies used their full entitlement. Eventhe physical capacity of the delivery system in some ditches is less than theiradjudicated amount. Although Washington water law distributes water on a senioritybasis, the Water Users have not managed their system on the basis of priority date, andinstead have attempted to insure that all users, and the instream flow get at least somewater. During the time that fish runs have declined, irrigation withdrawals have alsodecreased.

6. The ability of irrigation companies and districts to conserve water is hampered_ bylegal, educational, financial and physical constraints Because the issues arecompounded when more than one district or company works together, themanagement of water use by all 9 entities is complex. While the Water Users agreethat some savings are possible, they identify difficulties in implementing conservation,including: a) the old and inefficient delivery system will be expensive to upgrade; b)the multitude of new, small residential users of irrigation water are difficult to controland educate on beneficial use; c) unclear legal definitions for irrigation and domesticuse make enforcement difficult; and, d) they lack authority to prioritize and restrictuses when water is short.

__________________________________9 Montgomery Water Group. Irrigation Ditch Leakage Assessment Project. July 1993.



Figure 6.3 Dungeness River Irrigation WithdrawalsComparison of Water Rights to Actual Use Since 198610

Dungeness River Irrigation WithdrawalsComparison of Water Rights to Actual Use Since 1986

Water Rights Maximum UseAgnew 146 28CCD 176.94 43Highland 93.22 28Independent 40 19S. Prairie 62 38Ditches Combined for Water Rights

Ditch Outtakes _Combined Ditches Total Water RightsAgnew Formed McCleary-Lindsay Total cfs. 146CCD Clallam Company

Cline DistrictDungeness Company

6046

_70.94Total cfs. 176.94

Highland HighlandEureka

70.14_23.06

Total cfs. 93.22Independent Total cfs. 40Sequim Prairie Sequim Prairie

Dungeness District2042

Total cfs. 62_______________10 The data collected on water use by Ecology, XT and others is generally collected in late

summer and thus may not reflect high use during spring and early summer.



7. Many residences in the Sequim-Dungeness basin depend on wells which tan into ashallow aquifer that is artificially recharged by the irritation system. With theexception of a portion of Sequim's water supply, coming from an infiltration gallery inthe River, most residences, businesses and the City obtain their water from wells.Studies conducted by Drost, U.S. Geological Survey (1980's) documented that anumber of these wells depend on leakage from the irrigation system to recharge theground water, especially in the shallowest aquifer.11 Availability and quality concernsabound in this area of low rainfall, and (thus low recharge) as wells begin to dry up.Clallam County's Water Quality Department has been developing an inventory of welldata to determine both quantity and quality of ground water and is developing aground-water plan for these resources, but no long term funding to continue thisinvestigation is available Seawater intrusion has been documented in two areas of eastClallam County. A related problem is the regulatory and administrative difficulty increating community water systems instead of developing a multitude of unregulatedindividual wells (see number 11).

8. Irrigation has altered the regional ecosystem, artificially altering rechargepatterns. An entire system of wetlands have developed over the past 100 years as aresult of irrigation, and the effect on them of conservation practices is difficult topredict due to their complex hydrological and geological conditions. Whetherwetlands arising from, and influenced by irrigation are biologically productive isquestionable; at the same time irrigation has also adversely affected certain otherpre-existing (and natural) wetlands. Further study is needed. In addition to wetlands,small streams in the area have been artificially supplemented by irrigation. Irrigationditches have also been used as storm water conduits for new development, altering thenatural tendency for runoff to feed wetlands and small streams, and recharge to groundwater.

9. The water supply of the City of Sequim is in hydraulic continuity with theDungeness River. In addition to the concern that Sequim is adding to the instreamflow problem, the City needs to eliminate the portion of their supply from theinfiltration gallery or they may be mandated to install expensive filtration systems.The City is also in need of additional water supplies to meet fire and growthprojections. Per capita use of water by Sequim residents is higher than most northOlympic Peninsula communities, and is partially due to a high percent of usage byseasonal residents.12

_______________________11 Brian Drost. Impacts of Changes in Land Use on the Groundwater System in the

Sequim-Dungeness Peninsula, Clallam County, WA. U. S. Geological Survey. 1983.12 Polaris Engineering and Surveying, Inc. Comprehensive Water Plan, City of Sequim, WA.

System ID No. 77620-Y. 1993. pg. 243.



10. The lack of sufficient technical information and the complexity of 2eologica#conditions in the watershed make it difficult to quantify ground-water supplies. andto determine where and how much round water is available for future needs such thatexisting rights and instream flows will not be adversely impacted. Clallam County, theCity of Sequim, local water purveyors, and the development community are anticipatingthat ground water can meet the projected needs for future water supplies. However, little isknown about the quantity and quality of most of the ground water in the watershed, and thehydraulic interconnection between ground and surface water (hydraulic continuity13).

11. The time required to obtain a permit for ground water discourages the use ofcommunity systems. The Department of Ecology has a several-year backlog of permitapplications. Most ground-water applications are further delayed over concerns forhydraulic continuity, and the lack of technical information. Developers find it moreexpedient to drill individual (exempt) wells than to develop more efficient communitysystems. Delays in obtaining permits also hold up the development of test wells forexploring more sustainable water resources.

12. Clallam County lacks a system of management for water resources which links landuse planning to the availability of water on a cumulative, region-wide scale. Anestimated total of 30,000 residents are expected to live in eastern Clallam County by theyear 2020, compared to the 1992 population of 20,000,'4 making the protection andmanagement of water resources critical. The County presently requires evidence of theavailability of potable water prior to the issuance of building permits, but lacksmechanisms to evaluate the cumulative impact of these needs on regional water suppliesand instream resources.

_________________________13 See Glossary for a description of hydraulic continuity.14 Clallam County Department of Community Development. 1993.



Gravel Trap on Dungeness River



Recommendations and Actions

Water Management StrategiesRegional water management strategies are in Chapter 5, Regional RecommendationStrategies specific to east Clallam County and the Dungeness River may be found there.

Irrigation Water ManagementDiscussions and negotiations between the Tribe, the Dungeness River Agricultural WaterUsers and the rest of the Clallam County Work Group have focused on providing morewater to instream flows while maintaining the amount of water needed to keep agricultureviable in the Sequim-Dungeness basin over the long-term. The following actions, strategiesand recommendations have been developed to address these pressing needs.

Water RightsC.1 Water rights should be updated in the Dungeness River to reflect actual and

needed beneficial uses by human and natural systems.

C.1.1 Inventory what amount of water is needed to service the adjudicated usesand what the potential need will be in the future.

C.1.2 Determine what amount of existing rights are "paper rights" andeliminate15 or relinquishes them. Refer to Figure 6, Dungeness IrrigationWithdrawals. An estimated 300 cfs. are subject to relinquishment, but remainon paper in Ecology records. These should be removed to reflect actual use,and to protect junior water users and instream flows from activation of seniorrights. To protect instream flows, flows must be established by rule, and thepriority date of the water right is the date of the rule.

__________________________15 RCW 90.14.160 Relinquishment of right for abandonment or failure to beneficially use

without sufficient cause--Prior rights acquired through appropriation, custom or generaladjudication. Any person entitled to divert or withdraw waters of the State through anyappropriation authorized by enactments of the legislature prior to enactment of Chapter 117,Laws of 1917, or by custom, or by general adjudication, who abandons the same, or whovoluntarily fails, without sufficient cause to beneficially use all or any part of said right todivert or withdraw for any period of five successive years after the effective date of this act,shall relinquish such right or portion thereof, and said right or portion thereof shall revert tothe State, and the waters affected by said right shall become available for appropriation inaccordance with RCW 90.03.250.



C.1.3 Determine what amount can be saved for transfer to instream flow, andimplement via leasing or other legal mechanisms. The Dungeness RiverAgricultural Water Users Association and the Department of Ecology willcontinue to explore Trust Water Rights or a leasing mechanism to transferwater as savings occur from conservation measures.

C.1.4 Provide an on-going mechanism to eliminate disincentives to conservation(e.g. the use it or lose it concept), and allow on-going, orderly transfer of savedwater to instream flow needs. Holders of existing water rights may be protected fromrelinquishment by using Chapter 90.03 RCW to make changes in the purposes of useof their water right, by moving all or part of the water right temporarily orpermanently to the Trust Water Rights program, or by making sure they operate withinthe five year limit on loss of right through non-use. Leases of less than five yearsduration can be made, or changes in the purpose of use can be made from offstream toinstream under Chapter 90.03 RCW. C.1.4.1 Develop a formula to determine prioritiesfor "saved" water.

Dungeness River



Figure 6.4 The Dungeness River Agricultural Water Users Association'sMANAGEMENT STRATEGIES for Conservation and Efficiency of Use*

As a part of the on-going effort to change the way that water is used in the Sequim-Dungeness region, theDQ Technical Committee commissioned a report on irrigation ditch leakage. 16 The following is a list ofthe current measures being taken by the Dungeness River Agricultural Water Users Association toprovide a more efficient use of water for agriculture.

1. A Water Use Coordinator and Assistant have been hired and water use inefficiencies are beingidentified. The Coordinator will educate and train all the ditch managers in the process of measuringwater running through the ditches, in an effort to make sure that water is moving where it is needed inthe most efficient manner.

2. Increased annual ditch maintenance will occur with higher standards. A schedule formaintenance has been developed. Thorough ditch inspections will continue to identify the areas ofgreatest need for cleaning. Each District and Company will identify in their budget the dollarsneeded, and clean as many ditches as funding will allow.

3. Structural problems that cause water losses are being identified and will be repaired.4. Tail water controls are being installed and will be monitored in the future.5. Lateral controls are being installed to meter and control diversions. With these control devices in

place, ditch managers will be able to monitor the amount of tailwater available, and be better able tolimit the amount of water diverted from the river to only that amount needed for efficient irrigation.In addition, in places where a flume is going over a ditch, a weir will be set up to measure the water.

6. Vegetation is being controlled on banks to decrease evapotranspiration and the wettedperimeter of the ditch.

7. A monitoring program has been started to help direct additional conservation strategies.8. Education will be provided to water users in order to develop beyond irrigation management

the understanding for the need for "prioritization" and "shared sacrifice." This will includethe smaller users.

9. The Association will work with the Tribe towards improved mapping of main ditches, laterals,pump stations and return flows.

10. Special areas of concern will be identified and lined with short segments of pipes. Thosesegments identified as having substantial water losses need to be piped. The amount of lining andpiping will be limited by availability of funds. The ditch companies will be looking independently atpiping segments of the system.

11. Field days will be developed to look at current management practices and to share conservationideas and the need for further improvements.

* This. information was provided by Roger Schmidt, head of the Water Users Association.

______________________16 Montgomery Water Group. 1993.



Irrigation Water ManagementC.2 Management of water in the Dungeness irrigation systems should be improved. As

noted in Figure 6.4, The Dungeness River Agricultural Water Users Association'sManagement Strategies, for Conservation and Efficiency of Use, the Water Users arecommitted to conserving water. The recent and on-going improvements to theirconveyance systems, and willingness and awareness of the need to conserve water isexpected to show a savings in the quantity of water necessary to service the adjudicateduses and protect area resources.

C.2.1 Improved water management and conservation will be continued so as toprovide that no less than 50% of the instantaneous flow as measured at theUSGS gage at river mile 11.& from August 1 to the end of the irrigationseason (usually September 15), will remain instream.17

C.2.1.1 This agreement will begin with a good faith effort in the 1994 and 1995irrigation seasons. Continuation of this agreement past 1995 iscontingent on the ability of the Water Users to protect conserved waterfrom relinquishment by establishing a lease program or othermechanism with the State of Washington.

C.2.1.2 Flows will be based on weekly measurements with a 48 hour adjustmentperiod. Measurements will be made on Monday mornings and theinformation will be immediately relayed to the water use coordinatorfor the Association.

C.2.1.3 Irrigators will continue to direct irrigation water to areas where it ismost needed and use it most efficiently through the managementsystem which has been developed to implement conservation measures.The following activities/objectives should be pursued by the irrigationdistricts and companies:a. Continue to implement voluntary conservation and efficiency of

use measures to provide "saved" water for instream flow needs. Anassessment of the amount of water saved should be done by theyear 2000. If savings are not sufficient to meet the negotiatedtargets, the Water Users, in cooperation with the WatershedCouncil and Habitat Work Group should consider developing adetailed water conservation plan with a water management study.

_____________________________17 It is important to note that this agreement is based on the Tribe and the proposed Watershed

Council moving forward immediately on habitat improvements to make better use of theavailable water, see C.7, Habitat Restoration and Enhancement.



b. Over the next several years (by the year 2010), attempt to achieve atarget of at least 100 cfs. remaining instream from August 1 to the end ofthe irrigation season for years in which flows are at average or higherlevels. 18 This target is based on the requirements for Chinook spawninghabitat and other parameters in the IFIM study, which indicate thatgreater than 50 percent of the mean annual flow in late summer is neededfor fish habitat. After irrigators have implemented conservation and haveexperienced the impacts of water savings while servicing adjudicateduses, it may be determined whether this is an achievable target.

c. An assessment of water savings and the IFIM recommendations shouldbe conducted after 16 years (the year 2010), with the participation of theWatershed Council, Water Users, the Tribe and regional biologists.

d. Develop and educate users about a system of voluntary prioritization ofuses for times when flows are critically low.

CONSERVATION and INSTREAM FLOW STEPS

1. 1994-1995: Conservation is implemented and the agreement to manage for 50% of late summer flow begins. Habitat work group is formed.

2. By 1996: Leasing or other agreements with the State must be instituted to protectwater users from relinquishment of water rights for conserved water.

3. 2000: Assess whether conservation measures are working and whether moreefforts or detailed conservation plans are needed. Determine if habitatimprovements are being implemented.

4. 2010: Assess whether the IFIM recommendations are correct and ifthe target of 100 cfs. is appropriate and achievable.

______________________18 The Water Users want it noted that historic records show there are periodic times when the

Dungeness River does not meet the recommended IFIM flows. The Tribal Caucus also notesthat a target of 100 cfs is below the IFIM recommendation of 180 cfs in late summer.



C.2.2 Restructure districts and companies for more efficiency. Because ofthe complexity of water resource issues and management of 9 companies anddistricts, one Sequim-Dungeness irrigation district is needed.

C.2.2.1 Seek funding for the creation of one irrigation district forirrigation management, maintenance and administration. Includeincentives for conservation, tax advantages, grant funding possibilities,and efficiencies in the management of the water system.C.2.2.2 Explore the possibility of amending subdivision laws so thataccess or easements are not required.

C.2.3 Explore the possibility of revisions to the irrigation schedule which iscurrently April 15 - September 15.

C.2.3.1 Terminate most irrigation on September 1.C.2.3.2 Arrange a special permit system for individual crops that needto continue through September 30. Identify an efficient method todeliver water to these users without major withdrawal.C.2.3.3 Quantify the amount of, and define the use for, waterwithdrawals in the off-season. Incorporate this into the water right.C.2.3.4 Manage the need for seasonal shifts on a year-to-year basis.

C.2.4 The Dungeness River Agricultural Water Users Association shouldcontinue funding a water use coordinator on an ongoing, seasonal basis torecord water use, recommend efficiency measures, coordinate cooperationbetween ditches, and enforce cutbacks in low flow periods.

C.2.4.1 The water use coordinator should have the power to enforce anyagreements amongst the districts and companies to limit flow.



C.2.5 As a part of the proposed water resources study, the County, State and Tribeshould seek to assess the impacts of reduced irrigation on small streams, wellsand ground water using the strategies recommended in the Montgomeryreport.C.2.5.1 Perform ditch-specific ground-water assessments. These should focus on an

evaluation of potential impacts on down-gradient ground-water users andreceptors resulting from the proposed conservation measures.

C.2.5.2 Install stream gages on small streams that may be affected by a reduction inground-water discharge due to irrigation conservation measures. Comparestream flows to ground-water levels and irrigation ditch flows on a seasonalbasis.

C.2.5.3 Develop a regional system of wells for water level monitoring. Select wellsbest suited to assess impacts from lining ditches and other conservationmeasures.

C.2.5.4 Maintain the well data base, incorporating well location, depth, water leveland geology into a GIS.

C.2.5.5 Install shallow ground-water monitoring wells in wetlands that are ofconcern. Compare seasonal water levels to ground-water levels andirrigation ditch flows.

StorageC.3 In order to provide water during low flow periods, the possibilities for off-channel

storage of water from irritation diversions should be investigated.

C.3.1 The benefits of off-channel storage to the river system should be studied.C.3.1.1 Explore both large and small storage reservoirs, in-line reservoirs on

ditches and farm ponds.C.3.1.2 Explore the possibility of these reservoirs being fed by late fall/winter water

from diversions, rather than directly from the river, subject to minimuminstream flow requirements for those seasons.

C.3.1.3 Water stored should be used only as a supplement for irrigation water,ground-water recharge, and municipal fire flow, allowing water to be"saved" during critical times for instream flow.

C.3.1.4 Water stored should not be released back into the river because of theproblems of temperature, disease, and sedimentation.

C.3.2 There should be NO on-channel storage on the Dungeness River.



Conversion of UsesC.4 Converted irrigated lands should be carefully planned to improve the availability

of water for instream flow and avoid negative impacts on the river ecosystem. Theviability of agricultural lands is critical to the well-being of the community. If futureconversion occurs on some irrigated lands, the new uses should be carefully plannedto improve the availability of water for instream flows and to avoid negative impactson the river ecosystem.

C.4.1 Conversion of agricultural land requires and use re-evaluation to providefor efficient water uses.

C.4.1.1 The County should improve ordinances to require best managementpractices (BMPs), performance standards and total-irrigated-acreage-allowances and adopt their proposed drainage design manual. a.Develop a manual for BMPs incorporating both water quality andconservation components for all golf courses in the DQ project area.

C.4.1.2 Subject any lands converted from agricultural use to any conditionspreviously established including priority or conservation managementstrategies developed by the districts and companies.

C.4.1.3 Develop performance standards for lands converted to residentialdevelopment, specifying design and water efficiency managementstrategies.

Research and Data ManagementAs a part of the planning project, the DQ Technical Committee compiled and evaluatedexisting information on the water resources of the area. It became clear that not nearlyenough is known about either the surface or ground-water quantity or quality to make soundplanning decisions for protection and management in the future. The RPG commissionedthe U. S. Geological Survey to produce a workplan for the investigations needed todetermine this information about the resources. The DQ supports the critical importance ofpursuing this workplan to provide the region with the missing information to enabledecision-making in the future to be based on unquestioned data, and the importance ofmanaging that data in a way that makes it available to both governmental entities and theinterested public.

Hydrologic Research and Data ManagementC.5 Hvdrogeoloeic research (the water resources study), should be pursued as a

critical component to the future stewardship, allocation and management ofwater resources of the region. Data management should be an essential componentin the



research effort. Complete recommendations on Research and Data Managementare in Chapter 9, Technical Support.

HabitatAs a part of the planning effort, both Counties considered setting optimum instream flowsfor the rivers and streams to protect from increased future withdrawals to the detriment ofalready over-allocated systems. If the State set by rule (after appropriate public input), flowsdetermined "optimum" by fish biologists, withdrawals from the rivers above that numbercould not occur, thus protecting instream flows. It was the consensus of the entire groupthat no surface water rights should be issued until better data is available on theamount of flows in the rivers, related to fish needs.

The discussions on setting instream flows revolved around the following concerns:hydraulic continuity with the Dungeness River and small streams, how realistic were theoptimum recommended flows given the actual flows in the streams, and how might naturebe "mimicked" in water use and habitat restoration efforts. The following recommendationswere made to protect instream flows for fish needs during the interim period of the waterresources study, arid the development of better criteria to determine fish needs specific toeach river.

Instream FlowsInstream FlowsC.6 Instream flows should be protected and supplemented and improved in the future

as possible, to provide minimum flows needed for stocks of salmonids and etherspecies in the area's rivers and streams. See the end of this Chapter for the eastClallam County Instream Flow Needs for Fishery Resources.

These recommendations imply that water use at all points in the stream system mustbe managed to ensure adequate flows throughout. Considering the streams for whichactual flows have been routinely measured, the actual flows tend to be less than therecommended flows on mast streams. Comparison of recommended flows tohydrologic records suggests that, in many study streams further water appropriationwill reduce fish habitat value except during high flow events. Some streams appearmore sensitive than others to further withdrawals, based on the number of monthsduring which observed flows are likely to be less than recommended flows (Hiss).



C.6.1 The IFIM numbers established for the Dungeness River asminimum instream flows should be adopted by rule, and given a prioritydate effective as of the date of the rule, for use in permitting. The IFIMshould be reviewed and re-evaluated by the Watershed Council and HabitatWork Group to analyze the appropriateness of the instream flow limits, takingadvantage of improvements in newly developed biological criteria fordetermining instream flow recommendations. NOTE: Records indicate that theRiver has fallen short of the optimum flows during times when there were nowithdrawals for irrigation.

C.6.2 No surface water permits should be issued for small streams ineastern Clallam County. Existing flows should be maintained on thesestreams until optimum instream flow recommendations based on improvedbiological criteria are developed. The Department of Ecology in cooperationwith other appropriate agencies should refine methods to more accuratelyrepresent fish habitat areas on small streams, and biological criteria should bedeveloped for streams where the toe width method or IFIM cannot be used.Specifically, the method should account for the value of woody debris andother non-alluvial features that affect the shape and size of the channel.

C.6.2.1 Off stream water consumption and land use should be managedto maintain existing flows.C.6.2.2 On streams whose flows come partially from agriculturaldiversion from the Dungeness River, flows should mimic nature asmuch as possible.C.6.2.3 Existing return flow methods for irrigation tail waters must bemaintained, except for improved efficiencies.C.6.2.4 The Water Users want to establish the fact that they will notaccept any responsibility for furnishing irrigation waters to any specificuse outside their adjudications, including the Hurd Creek hatchery. Asrecent as March of 1994 a request was made to the Dungeness Districtfor continued supplies of irrigation water for the hatchery.



Habitat Protection and ManagementC.7 Habitat Restoration and Enhancement: In order to maximize the biological

productivity from available water resources, a habitat management plan should bedeveloped and implemented. Two groups are recommended: a Watershed Counciland an ad hoc Habitat Work Group.

Watershed ManagementC.7.1 A watershed management council and a habitat work group should be

established to achieve on-going continuity of regional habitat managementand to coordinate and guide research efforts.C.7.1.1 An attempt will be made to convene a group to describe the

implementation of this recommendation by July 30, 1994.C.7.1.2 WATERSHED COUNCIL MAKEUP: The Watershed Council should be

comprised of a cross section of participants from the Dungeness-Quilceneplanning group, the Dungeness River Area Watershed ManagementCommittee, the Dungeness River Management Team and the DungenessRiver Flood Advisory Board, since all of these groups inter-relate, andhave or will sunset by June 1994. The Council should monitor theimplementation of the three plans produced by planning efforts. Themembership is to be determined, and should include at a minimumrepresentatives from Federal, Tribal, State, County, and City governmentsand representatives from the public. Other issue-related groups could beintervened as needed, e.g. landowner's along the river.

C.7.1.3 HABITAT WORK GROUP MAKEUP: The Habitat Work Group shouldbe an ad hoc group of regional biologists with primary concern for theDungeness River and the area watersheds. In addition, other watershedscientists with expertise in related technical matters should be included, asneeded. This Work Group should function as a subgroup of the WatershedCouncil, and be convened, ad hoc, by June 1994 by the Tribe as a part ofan agreement with the Dungeness River Agricultural Water UsersAssociation. Though not active participants, the Water Users should bekept informed of the Work Group's decisions and actions, with the abilityto provide input and monitor the process and progress of managementefforts.

0.7.1.4 SCOPE: The scope should be broader than habitat alone, and include thearea from Seibert Creek to eastern Clallam Boundary, i.e. the west half ofDQ project area, with initial/primary focus on the Dungeness Riverwatershed. When issues are investigated outside these watersheds in areaswhich over lap in both counties, cooperative work with the



Jefferson County Watershed Council should be pursued, e.g. on MillerPeninsula.

C.7.1.5 FUNDING: Funding should be pursued by the governments tocoordinate and run this effort.

C.7.1.6 ADVISORY STATUS: The Watershed Council and Habitat WorkGroup should be advisory in nature and should not have regulatorypowers apart from those held by individual government/agencymembers, except as the member agencies grant it.

C.7.1.7 FOCUS: The Watershed Council should focus efforts on issuesincluding low flows during summer months, lack of good habitat forsalmonids and other wildlife species, gravel aggradation and humanimpacts along the river system. All salmonid enhancement work andhabitat review of major projects should be coordinated through theWatershed Council to eliminate negative cumulative impacts ofprojects.

C.7.1.8 An annual report should be prepared summarizing the WatershedCouncil's activities and recommendations. The results of all researchshould be incorporated into the river data management system used bythe Watershed Council.

C.7.1.9 The Watershed Council should work with the agencies providingpermits for river work to develop a user-friendly system which wouldallow for habitat improvement projects. The technical expertiserepresented by the Council should be made available to land ownerswho want to incorporate river restoration projects into their landimprovements.

C.7.1.10 The Watershed Council should investigate a range of options toovercome the obstacle of private ownership of the Dungeness Riverchannel, from donated to purchased or condemned channel easements,access rights, to fee simple acquisition and other opportunities.

C.7.1.11 The Habitat Work Group should develop for Watershed Councilconsideration a comprehensive habitat management plan, taking intoaccount the natural, historical processes which have and are occurringon the river systems. The plan should include: a. A comprehensivehabitat inventory for the Dungeness River to make recommendationsto begin to resolve the problem of unstable river channels caused bygravel aggradation; b. A description of why restoration andenhancement are needed and the potential benefits of the projects tothe river anti its community; c. An identification of the most criticalsections of the river for restoration including what projects are neededand their estimated results, costs and benefits;



d. A definition of the relationship to critical and depressed stocks to fish andstock recovery efforts;

e. A recommendation for changes in watershed forest practices, includingmanagement of riparian corridors, snowpack retention and recharge activities;

f. A recommendation for changes in local critical areas, flood control, and landuse ordinances related to habitat and salmonid needs;

g. A recommendation for a program for on-going monitoring of restorationprojects, a system for analyzing the results, and a mechanism to re-adjust therestoration efforts as needed.

C.7.1.12 Based on the habitat management plan, the Watershed Council should develop aset of policies or standards for habitat improvement or development projects inthe river, especially regarding gravel extraction and traps, in conjunction withpermitting entities.

C.7.1.13 Joint funding for the habitat improvements recommended in the habitatmanagement plan should be pursued.

C.7.1.14 Education for river-side land owners and river users should be considered as avital component of the habitat management planning effort.

Forest PracticesC.7.2 The future impacts of Forest Practices to long- and short-term regional hydrology

should be evaluated. Discussions with State and Federal forest managers regardingforest practices indicate that harvest levels are likely to be substantially down from theprevious decade, and should have little effect on river hydrology or fish habitat. Giventhis assumption, forest managers (including those on private lands) should:C.7.2.1 Consider managing snowpack to encourage maximum retention and thereby

extend runoff into area rivers and streams into the later summer;C.7.2.2 Maintain riparian corridors of at least the minimum width standards applied or

recommended by Federal, State and local agencies whose responsibilities arefocused on fish and ecosystem health;

C.7.2.3 Develop a corridor plan to maintain the wild and scenic functions of the rivercorridor, including the section from the USFS boundary to the Dungeness FishHatchery;

C.7.2.4 See Chapter 5, Regional Recommendations on Wild and Scenic Designation,8.13.1 and 8.13.5.

C.7.2.5 See Chapter 5, Regional Recommendations on Forest Practices, R.10.



Channel Stabilization and Gravel Traps C.7.3 A comprehensive approach for bankstabilization and gravel removal should be prepared in the future as a part of acomprehensive habitat restoration and management plan for the Dungeness River to bedeveloped by the proposed Watershed Council. It is agreed by the RPG that gravelaggradation and channel instability is a problem for land owners and native and wildfish and fisheries, and exacerbates low flow problems on the river. There is notagreement on what all the causes of the aggradation are and whether the channel willeventually stabilize on its own, or if human intervention is the best policy. Morespecific recommendations are in Appendix F, Stream Modifications.

Fish ManagementC.8 Fish management actions should reflect the need to protect and rebuild stocks

while instream flow protections and habitat improvement projects areimplemented.

C.8.1 See the Regional Recommendations on Fish Management, R.11.

C.8.2 State and Tribal fish managers should work with the proposed WatershedCouncil to analyze present hatchery and harvest management practices.Based on that study and other related analyses:C.8.2.1 Critical, high potential-of-becoming/being critical and depressed

stocks in the river should be protected, and target schedules should beset for attainment geared to the health and numbers of those wild fish.

C.8.2.2 The status of SASSI stocks currently designated as unknown, andoccurring primarily in the Dungeness or eastern Strait of Juan de Fucashould be determined. Appropriate measures should be taken for theirconservation.

C.8.2.3 The use of artificial propagation for stocks in jeopardy of extinction, asrecommended by fish biologists, should be initiated or continued.

a. Support and continue the chinook captive broodstock program.b. Initiate a similar program for upper and lower river pink salmon.

. However, caution is advised in attempting to take pink salmon into ahatchery setting. Responsible agencies must carefully examine pasterrors to avoid potential failures.

C.8.2.4 The use and water sources of the Dungeness and Hurd Creek hatcheriesshould be analyzed to determine the production limitations onhatchery stocks (coho) and to assess the impact of hatchery practices



on native and wild stocks, particularly with regard to predation of hatcherycoho smolts on wild pink salmon fry.

Wildlife ManagementC.9 Wildlife is recognized as an important component in the ecosystem and should

receive protection on local, State, and Federal levels.

C.9.1 See Chapter S, Regional Recommendations on Wildlife Management, R.12.

C.9.2 In the Dungeness River basin, efforts should be supported to establish wildlifehabitat areas and to maintain intact greenspace corridors which will allowprotection of habitats and ecosystems.19

C.9.2.1 Support Clallam County's Greenspace Program and work to providefunding to protect a greenspace corridor along the Dungeness River.

C.9.2.2 Clallam County and the City of Sequim should encourage land owners withincentives to provide private property for habitat corridors throughplanning efforts, tax breaks or other programs.

Wetlands, The Dungeness River and Small StreamsC.10 It is recognized that wetlands are important to the hydrologic functions of the basin

and to the wildlife which they support, and that those with high values and functionsshould be protected and enhanced as a cart of long-term habitat management of theregion.

C.10.1 Wetlands should be recognized according to their importance for habitat, wildlifespecies diversity, hydrologic recharge and storage (flood control), and aesthetic andrecreational human values.20

_________________________19 See further comments on Wildlife from the Environmental Caucus in Appendix E.20 See further comments on Wetlands from the Environmental Caucus in Appendix E.



MAP 6.1 Wetlands and Irrigation Ditches in Clallam CountyIrrigation Systems (dashed lines), Rivers and Streams (regular lines), and Wetlands (shadedareas) in Eastern Clallam County.



C.10.2 PART A: Due to the critical status of Dungeness fish stocks, irrigation water shouldnot be used to augment wetlands or small streams. In implementing changes to theirrigation system, an attempt should be made to try to restore a more-naturaldrainage system through the following measures:C.10.2A.1 Management of water resources to preserve instream flow in the Dungeness

River should take precedence over the intentional diversion of water toaugment other streams and area wetlands; e.g. reduced diversions may increaseflows in the mainstem of the Dungeness River.

C.10.2A.2 Re-evaluate the use of irrigation water in Bell and Matriotti Creeks in light ofthe educational and restoration efforts focused there.

C.10.2A.3 Outside the Dungeness River, managed reduction of flow is based on apresumption that native and wild stocks in their natal streams will not beadversely impacted. This recommendation is not intended to discount theimportance of small stream habitat and riparian wetlands to the biologicalproductivity of the entire ecosystem, and their protection should beincorporated into all habitat restoration efforts.

C.10.2A.4 Wetlands should be allowed to fluctuate naturally with the season, e.g. remainseasonally dry or wet without the manipulation of additions of ditch water.

C.10.2A.5 Streams should not be used for irrigation ditch conveyance, except where noalternatives exist; no new conveyance agreements should be started.Agreements to use some streams for irrigation water conveyance have been inplace since 1902. If the Watershed Council determines that changes to thepresent system are needed, a joint effort by the Water Users and the WatershedCouncil should be made to pursue funding for implementation of reroutingwaters.

C.10.2A.6 In existing developments, road construction and irrigation systems, as well asin future developments, the concept of mimicking nature should be utilized forstormwater runoff and recharge, in order to restore natural hydrologicalfunctions to small streams and wetlands. a. Identify and seek implementationof measures to modify existing ditches, particularly on the Agnew andhighland system, to direct runoff into existing natural channels rather than intoditches. b. Implement stormwater management and erosion drainage for newdevelopment. If the Council determines that changes to the present system areneeded, a joint effort by the Water Users and the Watershed Council should bemade to pursue funding for implementation of rerouting waters.



C.10.2 PART B: Wetlands should be considered during the planning for andimplementation of irrigation system conservation measures. It is acknowledged thatwith efficiency of use and conservation measures on the irrigation systems, some changesin wetlands and ground water may occur, and cannot always be predicted until measuresare implemented over a long period of time.C.10.2B.1 Identify, where feasible, which irrigation ditches discharge to wetlands and

ground water, and which wetlands are providing recharge to the irrigation system.C.10.2B.2 Identify, where feasible, wetlands which are providing critical wildlife habitat

and which may be affected by conservation measures. Determine alternativestrategies to protect these wetlands when conservation is implemented.

C.10.2B.3 Develop restoration measures for wetlands that provide critical wildlife habitatand have been impacted by irrigation conservation.a. Mitigation should be planned, where feasible, as part of the Strategic Wetland

Information System, in cooperation with the Watershed Council and fundedthrough interlocal and private-public partnerships.

b. The agriculture community should cooperate, where feasible, with projects tomitigate the loss of wetlands through provision of alternative habitat areas, andwater management if recommended by the Watershed Council.

C.10.3 See Chapter 5, Regional Recommendations on Wetlands Management, R8.



C.10.4 The following specific recommendations for wetlands and small streamsshould be implemented:0.10.4.1 The rehabilitation of small streams should be pursued even without

supplementing flows because: a. Productivity may still be maintained with lowwater levels; b. Rehabilitated sections of streams may act as "shock absorbers"to protect downstream areas, e.g. by storing sediment, providing flood control,and protecting downstream areas from runoff.

0.10.4.2 Routing ditches through the urbanized areas should be carefully analyzedbecause of the possibility that these ditches may he vehicles for carryingpollutants/runoff through the system.

0.10.4.3 Recharge should be improved by installing culverts under or over ditches todirect runoff away from ditches in problem areas, so that ditches are notabsorbing stormwater. This is especially important in the Agnew and Highlandditches. This would allow runoff to recharge wetlands and small streams andmimic original runoff patterns in the area, while helping solve runoff problems.

0.10.4.4 IIVIPOUNDMENTS: Any dams used to store irrigation water artificially raisethe local water table. These should be studied to determine if they are anefficient use of water and what their impacts are to area wetlands and the localwater table.

C.10.5 Small streams and tributaries should be studied to determine what needsexist for these ecosystems.0.10.5.1 Research should be done on the impact of irrigation water on fish imprinting in

the streams in the area, e.g. McDonnell Creek.0.10.5.2 An inventory and stock analysis should be done on the area's small streams, as

was done for eastern Jefferson County streams.21

____________________________21 Jim Lichatowich. The Status of Anadromous Fish Stock in the Streams of Eastern Jefferson

County, Washington. 1993.



MAP 6.2 Count of All Identified Water Wells in Square-Mile SectionsEastern Clallam County (n=3060) (as of mid 1993)



Ground WaterGround water is a big issue in Clallam County. Is there enough water to support agrowing population, what is the quality of that water, what are the threats of pollutionincluding seawater intrusion, and why are wells drying up? These are just some of themany questions that have been asked and discussed in the community, during the DQprocess, and at the County level as a ground-water program is developed.22 Preliminaryinvestigations of groundwater resources occurred in the DQ-funded studies on irrigationditch leakage and on seawater intrusion.23 Because of a concern over supplying amplewater for the community's present needs and for future development, while not drawingfrom over-allocated rivers (in hydraulic continuity with ground water) or miningunknown amounts of water in the deeper aquifers, the following recommendations weremade.

Hydraulic Continuity, Ground Water, Recharge and WellsC.11 Because little is known about the ground-water resources of the region, the

relationship between the Dungeness River and recharge should be a high priority inwater resource investigations. It is agreed by the Clallam County Work Group thatalmost all ground water in the watershed has the potential for continuity with theDungeness River, however, the extent of continuity and the risk to instreamresources will vary significantly with location, proximity, and timing of recharge.

C.11.1 Conduct a water resources study to analyze the regional ground- andsurface-water resources. The study should determine the regional distribution ofcharacteristics including ground-water quantity, quality, and hydraulic continuity,along with modeling such that safe, sustainable yields may be estimated. As a partof this study, existing wells in the area such as the Weyerhaeuser well, should beinvestigated as to quantity, quality, and risk of hydraulic continuity. Based on theresults of the study, a comprehensive source of water for use in present and futuregrowth should be developed.

_____________________22 Sequim-Dungeness Ground Water Protection Strategies Final Draft 1994, are currently being

produced by the Clallam County Department of Community Development (Ann Soule), andthe Sequim-Dungeness Ground Water Committee. This document, combined with the DQrecommendations and those from other planning efforts in the basin, will help guide the waytowards a comprehensive ground water strategy for the area.

23 Robert Forties and CH2MHi11. Preliminary Assessment of Seawater Intrusion in CoastalWater Wells in Eastern Clallam and Eastern Jefferson Counties. October 1993.



C.11.2 An interim strategy should be developed to determine how to protectthe quality and quantity of ground water for the next five years, or untilmore hydrogeologic information is available. (NOTE: Because of time andbudget constraints, an interim strategy has not yet been completed by the RPG;preliminary discussions have started on the topic.)

As a part of the interim strategy, hydrologists from the County and State shouldattempt to identify known high risk areas as soon as possible. New wells shouldbe completed in deeper, confined aquifers, where possible. This is a general,interim recommendation pending the results of more detailed water resourceinvestigations and is intended to minimize impacts to instream flows, shallowwells and water quality.C.11.2.1 In cooperation with the State and Tribes, the County should pursue

funding to develop an interim strategy in 1994 to protect ground water andto guide the State's future issuance of permits.

C.11.2.2 Clallam County will convene a "ground water group" to include theCounty, PUD, Tribe and State ground-water staff to develop a menu ofoptions based on the Water Resources Forum's Hydraulic Continuity andInstream Flow Policies document. These factors will be applied to thelocal level to develop regional strategy. Next, the eight RPG caucuses willbe reconvened to review the recommended interim strategies. This will becompleted before September 30, 1994 (within the 90 day review period ofthe DQ Plan by Ecology).

C.11.2.3 Pending the results of the water resources study (during the next fiveyears), Clallam County and the City of Sequim should enact land usecontrols limiting density ©f development in areas of high risk forhydraulic continuity or ground-water mining, or require the use ofalternative water sources subject to other provisions contained in this plan.



The Water Right Exemption or 5,000 Gallon Exemption

In Washington State, prospective water users must obtain authorization from the Department of Ecologybefore diverting and using any surface water. For ground-water withdrawals, State water law requires allprospective water users to obtain a water right permit from Ecology before constructing a well or withdrawingany ground water from a well. However, the law does allow a water right Permit Exemption which states thatno water right permit is required for the withdrawal of up to 5,000 gallons of water per day (gpd) from a wellwhen the water is being used for:

• Livestock watering;• Single or group domestic water supply;• Industrial purposes; or• Irrigation of no more than I/2 acre of lawn or non-commercial garden.

This exemption to the water right permit process is commonly called the "domestic exemption" or the "5000gallon exemption."

How the Exemption WorksThe Permit Exemption allows certain users of small quantities of ground water (most commonly singleresidential well owners) to construct their wells and develop their water supplies without first obtaining a waterright permit from the Department of Ecology.

• Water users withdrawing ground water under the exemption establish a water right equal to the waterright they would establish by obtaining a permit from Ecology. The priority of such a water right datesback to the beginning of beneficial use of the water, as defined by the State Ground Water Code.

• Water users have the option of applying far a water right permit even though their uses fall under thePermit Exemption.

• All wells for a given project apply toward the limits of the exemption. For example, one could notirrigate two acres by installing four wells - each serving I/2 acre, or use 10,000 gallons per day for anindustrial purpose by installing two wells. Each of these water uses would require permit authorizationfrom Ecology.

• Ground-water users with "exempt" rights are still subject to regulation in favor of senior water rights.All water users are subject to the rule of "first in time, first in right." Ecology regulates the diversionsand withdrawals of junior (more recent) water users when their water uses impair senior water rights.For instance, regulation is necessary when affected senior water rights are no longer able to fullysatisfy their rights. These affected senior rights can be senior ground-water rights, surface-water rightsor instrearn flows,

• The Permit Exemption is not available to prospective water users in certain water short areas that havebeen closed to further appropriation.

This information is from the Department of Ecology.



0.11.3 Manage ground-water resources to insure the protection of water quality.Shallow wells should be discouraged in East Clallam County, especially in areasin hydraulic continuity with rivers and streams. The following recommendationsare made for wells:C.11.3.1 Implement a well inspection and sampling program as a part of the

water resources study;C11.3.2 Identify unused wells and decommission them properly according to

State standards;C.11.3.3 Identify wells that are having problems such as seawater intrusion,

contamination and declining water levels; investigate the causes;implement corrective measures;

0.11.4 For all new wells drilled in the County, follow and enforce the StateMinimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells (Chapter173-160 WAC) arid the Water Well Construction Act (Chapter 18.104RCW).

IMPORTANT NOTE: Considerable discussion was focused on the recommendation tometer wells in east Clallam County. The following recommendations have full consensusof the Work Group. Further recommendations which do not have full consensus supportappear at the end of the Chapter.

0.11.5 Meter all new community water systems and require that the State,County, City or PUD with jurisdiction record total annual water use.0.11.5.1 Encourage all new individual and industrial/commercial users to installmeters to determine water usage.

0.11.6 The County should develop and establish a S year well metering pilot studyon 100 houses with new and existing wells within 1/2 mile of the DungenessRiver. As a critical element of the over-all water resources study (USGSworkplan) for east Clallam County, a water use inventory of wells must bedeveloped. By choosing a number of wells that are in hydraulic continuity withthe Dungeness River, and metering those wells, we will begin to develop aclearer picture of the relationship between ground-water use and instream flows,and of the actual amount used by individual well owners.

In addition, the voluntary participation of well owners in this program willenable them to understand the quantity of water being used, and to compare thatto the allowed amount. Through this program, the County will offer themetering



equipment and installation, read the wells on a regular basis, and compile theground-water information. Throughout the 5 year period the information will be fedinto the water resource study. The water budget will enable decisions to be madeabout land use based on known use related to known existing water resources.

C.11.7 Encourage community systems by providing quicker, local review ofpermits,24 to eliminate the need for single exempt wells, to promote efficient,healthful water systems and to enhance monitoring capabilities.

C.11.8 In the interest of the aver-all health of the region, develop low interest loans orother mechanisms to maintain or assure potable water for those areas affectedby public health problems related to the water supply or insufficient water.

C.11.9 After the proposed water resources study has been completed, establish along-term strategy and program for the protection of ground water. Includedshould be implementation of these recommendations from the Forties! CH2MHillseawater intrusion study and the Washington Department of Ecology SeawaterIntrusion Policy, August 1992. C. I I .9.1 Identify areas of risk far seawaterintrusion; C. I 1.9.2 Develop sub-regional water management plans for areas wherepotential seawater intrusion has been documented.

C.11.10 Local water purveyors and Clallam County should consider organizing under"The Public Water System Coordination Act of 1987," Chapter 70.116 RCWand Chapter 248-56 WAC.

C.11.11 Develop an education program to educate well owners on the proper use ofwell water, including an understanding of the ground-water exemption of 5000gallons/day and the one-half-acre rule.

C.11.12 Because of the potential cumulative affects on the ground water from on-. site disposal of salt filters for water softeners, future consideration should be

given to their use in the County, and educational materials should be producedexplaining their possible negative impacts on ground-water quality.

________________________________________24 See Environmental Dissent on C.16 at the end of the Chapter.



C.12.1 The City of Sequim .should develop a long-term source of water, and workto conserve water from the Dungeness River. It should also work togradually eliminate the use of surface water from the Dungeness Riverexcept as a back-up in extreme cases. It is recommended that:C.12.1.1 The City of Sequim apply to the Department of Ecology for a change

in the point of diversion from surface to ground water. This wouldallow the use of the existing 1.4 cfs. water right on the DungenessRiver to be transferred to an alternative ground-water location. Thisshould be subject to the investigation of the ground-water supplyadequacy and impacts on neighboring wells.

C.12.1.2 The City of Sequim participate in funding proportionately theproposed water resources study. This will determine if there is along-term deep-well source of water to provide for the needs of thecitizens, current and future.

C.12.1.3 The findings from the proposed water resources study beincorporated into the long-term planning strategies for waterresources by the City.

C.12.1.4 The City of Sequim enact and/or enforce regulations protectingsensitive, environmentally-vulnerable areas and aquifer rechargeareas.

C.12.1.5 The City of Sequim pursue appropriate alternatives to theconstruction of a surface water filtration plant, and State and Federalagencies alleviate the deadline of 1998 for filtration.

C.12.2 The City of Sequim should implement a rigorous conservation program tomost efficiently use the available water and to reduce the higher-than-average per-citizen use. The City should:C.12.2.1 Implement the conservation recommendations in the 1993

Comprehensive Water Plan,25 incorporating the DQ's sharedsacrifice concept of cutting back equally among all users duringtimes of low flow.

C.12.2.2 Adopt regulations enabling them to implement mandatoryrestrictions during shortages, e.g. alternate-day watering or nooutside watering.

C.12.2.3 Implement the Plan's following recommendations with a goal of 15%reduction in demand:

a. INFRASTRUCTURE: Investigate storage possibilities to providefor the current summer season deficiency.

________________________25 Polaris Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 1993 Comprehensive Water Plan, System ID No.77624 y, City of Sequim, WA. August 31, 1993. See Appendix for the Conservation chapter.



C.12.2.3 Implement the Plan's following recommendations with a goal of 15%reduction in demand:a. INFRASTRUCTURE: Investigate storage possibilities to provide

far the current summer season deficiency.b. INSIDE DOMESTIC USE: Adopt an aggressive policy that

would: 1) mandate the installation of water-conserving devices onall new and remodel construction as a requirement of permitapproval; and 2) require the conversion of existing construction tolow flow construction within a specified period of time, such as 5years. The City should investigate the costs associated withproviding financial support to assist with the conversion forpersons of low income.

c. OUTSIDE DOMESTIC USE: Establish an inverted ratestructure,26 reducing the current incremental billing unit of 5000cubic feet to 500 cubic feet, to increase consumer awareness ofthe total amount of water used through an increasingly largerwater bill.

d. COMMERCIAL USES:27 Undertake the installation of low flowtoilets, flow restrictors and pressure regulators. Implement theinverted rate structure for the commercial category.

e. SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS:• Provide a competent master meter system to account for

"unaccounted waters,"28 and provide for a meaningful systemindicator;

• Modify the current computer-produced water billing system toprovide water use statistics.

f. Consider adopting a seasonal water rate, one for winter and ahigher rate for summer.

g. Initiate a water audit program which would provide a voluntaryreview of owner's water systems and provide information on waysto increase efficiency of water use.

h. Require conformance of all structures to the state Energy Code.i. Add additional pressure zones to bring average zone pressure

dawn from 80 to around 45 psi, resulting in significant water flowreductions for users in all categories.

j. Provide active conservation education programs for water users inthe community, including using mailers with the water hills,promotional

__________________26 An inverted rate structure features an increase charge for billing unit as the water

consumption increases.27 Within this classification are offices, motels, commercial and public facilities.28 Unaccounted waters are those waters lost in the system due to leaks, evaporation or other

means.



programs, public presentations, technical support for commercial users toinstall recycling water systems for non-potable water uses, and encouragingwater conservation at businesses such as restaurants, motels, etc.

k. Provide storage and fire protection measures that do not require thedevelopment of new sources or instantaneous withdrawals in low flowperiods.

C.12.3 Prior to the extension of service to additional areas, the City of Sequimshould document the availability of adequate water supplies subject to other policiesin this plan (e.g. hydraulic continuity).

C.12.4 Interties with other water purveyors within the DQ region may be permitted.It should be demonstrated that interties will cause no negative impacts on instreamflows or hydraulic continuity, and that ground-water withdrawals will remainwithin safe, sustainable levels.



Map 6.3 Land Use of Eastern Clallam County(Data from the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team 1991)



East Clallam County Regional Water Management SystemA great deal of discussion occurred in the Work Group about how to better manage waterresources given even greater limits on Ecology's Water Resources Program. DQ looked atexisting protection programs at the State level, and generally believed these were not sufficientlyeffective to protect the resources. These included Ch. 173-100 WAC, Ground WaterManagement Areas and Programs, Ch. 36.36 RCW Aquifer Protection Areas and Ch. 173-22WAC Ground Water Quality Standards. Some of the problems include staffing limitations, timethese programs take to implement, structures which do not allow for sufficient flexibility, and thecurrent political climate which makes it difficult for local communities to establish new taxes.This discussion came very late in the process. There was consensus that something differentneeded to be done to make the system much quicker, more efficient and to better protect theresources. Consensus was reached on the following recommendations Furtherrecommendations which do not have full consensus support appear at the end of the Chapter.

Watershed Protection DistrictC.13 A watershed protection district should be further defined to provide funding for

consistent staff support for water quality and quantity protection and management,and aquifer management, and to leverage funding for grants for special projects.There was not time to develop this idea further. Generally, the caucus members agreewith the concept of establishing a comprehensive, regional watershed protection district.

Regional Water Management System for East Clallam CountyC.14 A comprehensive regional water management program for east Clallam County

should be developed and implemented, including ground- and surface waterquantity and quality, suppliers and use. Though this program has not been fullydefined because of lack of time, some of the elements to be considered in the programinclude:

C.14.1 Manage public water supplies to encourage efficiency and meet healthrequirements.C.14.1.1 Inform water users about State building regulations under the plumbing

code concerning the use efficient indoor fixtures.C.14.1.2 The Clallam PIJD has already implemented a program to retrofit

shower heads and faucet fixtures. Determine the feasibility and need forexpanding this program to include toilets.



C.14.1.3 Develop a program to train and certify the operators of communitywater systems and implement it in coordination with County, State, andFederal system requirements.

C.14.1.4 Investigate a water master or other management regime forcoordination and management of water systems in the area.

C.14.2 Programs and regulations should be developed for outdoor waterconservation. These should include:

C.14.2.1 Restrictions on lawn watering, car washing and other low-necessityuses when supplies are short.

C.14.2.2 The use of efficient low-flow sprinkler heads, pumps and otherequipment, and drought-tolerant landscaping when there is no rechargepotential.

C.14.2.3 Prudent-practices guidelines and education on vegetative compositionand total size of lawns, gardens and plantings.

C.14.3 Water quantity and quality issues should be considered in the planning andsiting of new developments and wastewater facilities.

C.14.3.1 Research and analyze the use of wastewater for irrigation under theEcology/Health Interim Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse, andimplement a program on a pilot-basis at trial sites in the region. Moreinformation is needed regarding the effect of wastewater-use onstreams, wetlands and ground water. This includes what might resultfrom run-off capturing facilities being fitted to any sizable percentageof newly-developed buildings. The use of various types of effluent foragriculture, gardens, golf courses, parks and other irrigation needsshould be investigated.

C.14.3.2 Incorporate into water supply plans current and future municipal andpublic sewage disposal needs.



Public Education and Conservation

Public Education and ConservationThe RPG recognizes that one of the best ways to improve water use efficiency and managementis through public education and conservation. Therefore it is recommended that publicconservation education take a high priority in the management of water resources in east ClallamCounty.

C.15 Implement the recommendations on education and conservation covered the DOWater Resources Preliminary Education Plan. See Appendix C.

C.15.1 Public education and conservation programs should be continued andexpanded, targeting schools, well owners, riparian and wetland land owners,members of the Planning Commissions and Critical Areas Committee, CityCouncil members, real estate agents, recreators, agriculturists (commercialand hobby), and others. Conservation education may vary by sub-area dependingon water use and ground-water conditions.C.15.2.1 Provide conservation programs appropriate to each sub-region.

0.15.2 See the Regional Recommendations on Education.

Regional Planning Group learning about the river



UNRESOLVED ISSUES

The following recommendations stand as unresolved issues. Late in the discussions on the Plan,dissent was brought formally against these recommendations. At that late point in the planningprocess, the Work Group was not able to resolve the issues so that consensus could be reached.Because various members of the Work Group interpreted the definition of consensus differently,it was finally agreed that these recommendations should appear at the end of Chapter 6, insteadof in the body. Full consensus has not been reached on these recommendations. The dissentsfollow each recommendation.

MeteringC.16 Metering:29 All new wells should be required to be metered to provide:

a. Land owner education;b. The ability to measure conservation; andc. The ability to determine whether use is within the 5,000 gpd exemption or permitted

water right. This information may be used for annual reporting in the fixture. NOTE:HB 1309, passed last year by the State's Legislature, requires meters (or other approvedmeasuring methods), on all new surface water rights, all new or existing rights orclaims over 1 cfs., and on rivers with depressed or critical stocks; and may requiremeters on all surface and ground-water permits.

BUSINESS & ENVIRONMENTAL CAUCUS DISSENT on C.16We do not object to metering new community water systems. However, to require meters anevery new well is an unnecessary cost without a sufficient corresponding ground-water benefit.The meters must be purchased, installed, and periodically checked and maintained The averagewater use for a single family residence has been estimated It should be fairly evident whenpeople are watering far more than the 112 acre allowed without an official water right. Violatorsmay be reported to the Department of Ecology. Furthermore, much of the water used fordomestic irrigation and septic systems in the Sequim Dungeness Valley is returned to thegroundwater. The meters will not show the quantity of return.

_____________________29 Refer to 0.11.5 for the rest of the recommendations on metering.



County Participation in Water Resource Management30

C.17 PREAMBLE: A Memorandum of Understanding should be developed betweenClallam County and the Department of Ecology for a local water resources programto review and make recommendations on water right applications, well drilling andwater use. The final decisions on issuance of water rights will still remain with theDepartment of Ecology. The DQ would like to help expedite the process of applying forwater rights and permits for drilling wells and make the system more efficient. Moving thereview process, site investigations, and recommendations on water rights applications tothe local level has the potential to alleviate some of the work load of the Department ofEcology. This should make the water rights application process quicker, more efficient, andthereby provide ground-water protection by encouraging community systems. This willalso allow a move from looking at water rights issues on a case-by-case basis to a moreefficient and effective regional approach, based on improved understanding of the localhydrology.

C.17.1 The C1allam County program should include the following major elements:0.17.1.1 The County should have the responsibility for the review process

including site investigations, and make recommendations on water rightsapplications to Ecology.

0.17.1.2 Ecology should delegate the administration of the well drilling program,including decommissioning to Clallam County.

0.17.1.3 The County should continue ambient monitoring of ground-water qualityand quantity.

0.17.1.4 In order for appropriate decision-making an water rights permits, theCounty should take the lead responsibility for a watershed-wide approachto information collection, and develop a comprehensive water resourcesdata and information base.

0.17.1.5 Procedures to insure scientific and technically defensible decisions farwater rights permit decisions.

0.17.1.6 Continuation and enhancement of community-wide education efforts onwater use, conservation and protection.

0.17.1.7 The County must have the ability to recover the cost of the water resourcesprogram through the establishment of a fee structure or some othermechanism.

________________________30 Refer to 0.13 and 0.14 for the rest of the recommendations related to 0.17.



ENVIRONMENTAL CAUCUS DISSENT on C.17The Environmental Caucus cannot pledge support for, or non-opposition to this measure. Thesection itself is an unsatisfactory implementation of measures to which we have achievedconsensus. We cannot consense with C.11. 7 without the change indicated as follows: Encouragecommunity systems by providing quicker local review of permits, to eliminate the need for singleexempt wells. . . in order to promote efficient healthful water systems and to enhance monitoringcapabilities.

It seems inadvisable to favor turning over to arty county those duties clearly defined in R. C. W.s and WA Cs as those of the State through the Department of Ecology and Health. Eachdepartment has a federal line of authority through the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking WaterAct among others Although permitting authority is not requested, the responsibility forpermitting includes duties and findings which attach to the permit. Responsibility cannot beshifted The County's assistance should be as called for in other sections -- coordination,research, and, from Chapter 9, Technical Support, data base access should be made available tothe public, consultants and agencies.

Those residents wishing to persuade the County Commissioners of the public gain attached tothe suggested activities have ample opportunity during the formation of the Annual Budget andits hearing process.

The usual local government complaint against unfunded mandates is strangely lacking. The callfor grant money needed as expressed in "Implementation" already includes significant grantneeds. The establishment of fee structures locally must be by ordinance. Indeed it is the lack offee structures at the State level that has reduced the resources expected to be provided byEcology and Health and other agencies. We would prefer that energy be spent on improvementsat the State level.

There must be equity among the counties as to services provided by the State which only theState is responsible for. It should not came to a question of water supply or water safety bywalking across a county line.

We continue to urge the County to utilize existing laws such as WAC 173-100 Ground WaterManagement Areas and Programs under 90.44 RCW We believe that such a sweeping change inCounty/State activities must at least await the Final Draft Groundwater Protection Strategydeveloped under the Sequim-Dungeness Groundwater Protection Project which has yet toreceive Groundwater Committee final review and possible revision, a public meeting and publiccomment (late June, early July), and submission thereafter to Board of Commissioners andEcology for approval and potential adoption within C.C.C. 27.01.200.



Figure 6.5 Instream Flow Needs for Fishery Resources in Clallam County

General Considerations:31

1. Choice of Species: Species occurrence in toe width study area follows the 1992 Salmon andSteelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI), (WDF et al. 1993), except on Big and Little Quilcene,which historically may have supported natural chinook spawning.

2. Flow Protection in Context: Flow protection is an essential part of overall habitat protection,but cannot make up for lost habitat area, access to habitat or diversity of habitat types. Forexample, riparian and estuarine wetlands provide cover and food for certain salmonid speciesin the DQ project area .



A. Spawning and rearing flows for the Dungeness River are the “maximum habitat flows” from the IFIM (Hiss1993a). Spawning flows for all other streams are the “optimum flows” from the toe width method (Swift 1976,1979). Rearing flows for all other streams are the “preferred flows” from the toe width method (Swift 1986, 1979)See Glossary for definitions.

Volume 1

Chapter 7

East Jefferson County ! QuilceneWatershed Recommendations

East Jefferson County Recommendations 7.1

Chapter 7Eastern Jefferson County Recommendations

This Chapter reflects issues specific to Jefferson County and strategies and recommendationsmade by the Jefferson County Work Group of the Regional planning Group. Unless indicated,consensus was reached by this group on the recommendations in Chapter 7. Refer to Chapter S,General Background for a discussion on how the RPG worked on issues andrecommendations.

Problem DefinitionGoals 3 and 4 of the Regional Planning Group express the community's desire to achieve therestoration of fish resources in the Quilcene watershed while providing water for other beneficialuses. These goals result from severe physical, ecological and legal problems which are becomingmore evident as land use issues provide pressure on the system. The region lies in a rainshadowcreated by the Olympic Mountains, which is reflected in the chronic low summer flows in manystreams in eastern Jefferson County. Lichatowich suggests that the salmon populations heresurvive in ecologically unique habitats, and because these are -marginal habitats, these fish mayrepresent an important component of the genetic resources of the species native to streams ineastern Jefferson County.1

Because of low summer flows, salmon habitat in these streams is highly susceptible todegradation from poor land use practices. Major concern includes critical and depressed runs ofsalmon and steelhead, degraded fish habitat, insufficient instream flows, the gap between water.rights and water availability, flooding, and the alterations made to the ecosystem throughsignificant diversions of water to provide for industrial, municipal and hatchery uses. Concernalso exists over harvest management practices.

Table 7.1 illustrates the status of stocks in eastern Jefferson County and Table 7.2 illustrates theutilization of small streams by salmonids. The local conditions may be contrasted to the

_______________________________1 Jim Lichatowich. The Status of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the Streams of Eastern Jefferson

County, Washington. Fall 1993.


7.2 East Jefferson County Recommendations

entire peninsula in Table 5.1 in Chapter 5 which illustrates the status of salmonids in thenortheastern Olympic Peninsula compared to the statewide inventory. The list of critical anddepressed stocks in WDF et al. (1993) supports the hypothesis that salmon habitat in EasternJefferson County is highly vulnerable to degradation, because of marginal habitat due torainshadow conditions. There is a higher percentage of salmon stocks listed as critical in theOlympic rainshadow compared to the statewide totals, with almost half of the critical stocks inthe State to be found in the northeastern corner of the Olympic Peninsula (5 out of 12). Inaddition, the percentage of depressed stocks is higher compared to the statewide totals. There areonly 5 out of the 25 stocks in the rainshadow area listed as healthy by WDF, (Lichatowich).

In addition, hydraulic continuity between ground water and area streams, lakes and ponds andthe impact on these aquatic systems of increased numbers of wells is a concern for area residents.Hydraulic continuity between watersheds via ground water is unknown in the region and mayexist in areas of Quilcene Bay, the Big and Little Quilcene, Donovan, Salmon and Snow Creeksand Discovery Bay.

1. The condition of wild fish resources in the ft and Little Quilcene Rivers is severelydegraded. The Big and Little Quilcene Rivers support part of the Hood Canal summer chumrun, which is designated critical -- that is, at risk of extinction -- in the 1992 SASSI (WDFWet al. 1993). These two streams also support a mix of hatchery and naturally-producedQuilcene Bay-Dabob Bay coho, which the same document designates depressed The streamsmay have historically supported fall-run chinook (Williams et al. 1975), although no suchruns are recognized today (WDFW et al. 1993). Puget Sound cutthroat trout were considereda stock of special concern by Nehlsen et al. (1991).

2. The condition of native and wild fish in the other streams in eastern Jefferson County isalso severely degraded. Chum salmon in Chimacum Creek, coho and chum salmon inThorndyke and Shine creeks, and chinook salmon in the Little Quilcene have alreadyreached, or are on the verge of extinction. Many other salmon populations in easternJefferson County are listed as depressed or critical. The rich population diversity of salmonin these streams may be irreversibly lost, (Lichatowich). More work on these populations isneeded, with a closer examination of the stocks and stock structure of Pacific salmonwarranted, as well as human impacts such as poaching. According to Lichatowich, theadditional study should examine geomorphic differences in the streams and habitat structure;determine genetic differences between populations through biochemical techniques, andevaluate life history differences between populations.



Table 7.1 Status of Stocks in Eastern Jefferson County (WDF et al. 1993)2

Stream Coho Chum Pink Chinook Steelhead Cutthroattrout

Salmon,Snow

Critical Summer Critical nm nm Winter -Depressed

SpecialConcern*

Chimacum Healthy nm nm nm nm SpecialConcern*

Thorndike,Shine

Depressed nm nm nm nm SpecialConcern*

Tarboo,Donovan,BigQuilceneLittleQuilcene

Depressed Summer -CriticalLate Fall -Health

nm nm Winter -Unknown

SpecialConcern*

nm Not Mentioned * Nehlsen et al., 1991

Table 7.2 Salmon Utilization in Eastern Jefferson County (Williams et al.,1975)2

Field work has shown that there are salmonids in other creeks besides what are listed below inthe "streams catalog." No up-dated listing is available. Cutthroat, steelhead, and other fish stockspossibly using many of these creeks were not included in the stream catalog.Stream Salmon UtilizationEagle,Contractors

Coho, Chum

SalmonSnow

Coho, Chum

Chimacum Coho, Chum

Ludlow Unknown

ThorndykeShine, stream 0200

Coho, Chum

Tarboo, Donovan,Little Quilcene

Coho, Chum

Big Quilcene River Coho, Chum, Chinook*

Spencer Coho, Chum

* Hatchery_________________2 See Lichatowich for further descriptions.



STOCK STATUS CATEGORIES DEFINED*

The DQ commissioned salmon expert Jim Lichatowich to investigate the status of anadromousfish stocks in eastern Jefferson County. An important part of that report is the review andcomparison of recent stock status reports, Nehlsen et al. 1991, WDF et al. 1992 and USFWS 1991.Each of the three status reports used different terminology to describe the status of salmon stocks,and the Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) also defined terms. The extinct categoryas used in the reports is self explanatory. The other status categories were defined in the followingway:

Nehlsen et ah (1991)

High Risk Populations whose spawning populations are declining. Fewer than one adult fishreturns to spawn from each parent spawner. Populations having recent (within the past I to 5years) escapements under 200, in the absence of evidence that they were historically small, alsowere placed in this category because of the genetic and environmental risk they likely face.Moderate Risk Populations whose spawning escapement appears to be stable after previouslydeclining more than natural variations would account for, but are above 200. Approximately oneadult per spawner is returning. Populations having larger escapements (around 1000) were moreweighted toward the at moderate risk category, while those having smaller escapements wereweighted toward the at high risk category.Special Concern Populations for which:

• Relatively minor disturbances could threaten them, especially if a specific threat isknown.

• Insufficient information on population trend exists, but available informationsuggests depletion.

• There are relatively large ongoing releases of nonnative fish, and thepotential for interbreeding with native populations exists.

• The population is not presently at risk, but requires attention because of a uniquecharacter.

SASSI Criteria for 1994 Update

High Potential of becoming/being critical: SASSI criteria includes: 1) stocks that have a highpotential of becoming critical in the near future, or 2) stocks in the unknown category that inSASSI judgment have a high potential of being designated critical when final resolution of theirstatus is available.



Washington Department of Fisheries et al. (1993)

Healthy A stock of fish experiencing production levels consistent with its available habitat withinthe natural variation in survival for the stock. Depressed A stock of fish whose production isbelow expected levels based on available habitat and natural variation in survival rates, but abovethe level where permanent damage to the stock is likely. Critical A stock of fish experiencingproduction levels that are so low that permanent damage to the stock is likely or has alreadyoccurred. Unknown There is insufficient evidence to rate stock status. Disputed For some stocks,State and Tribal biologists could not agree on status during the development of the inventory.Those stocks are listed as disputed.

Stock Origin

Native An indigenous stock of fish that has not been substantially impacted by genetic interactionswith nonnative stocks, or by other factors, and is still present in all or part of its original range.Non-native A stock that has become established outside its original range. Mixed A stock whoseindividuals originated from co-mingled native and nonnative parents, and/or by mating betweennative and nonnative fish (hybridization); or a previously native stock that has undergonesubstantial genetic alteration. Unknown This description is applied to stocks where there isinsufficient information to identify stock origin with confidence.

Production Type

Wild A stock that is sustained by natural spawning and rearing in the natural habitat, regardless ofparentage.Cultured A stock that depends on spawning, incubation, hatching, or rearing in a hatchery or otherartificial production facility. Composite A stock sustained by both wild and artificial production.

Other Definitions

Endangered Defined through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as being in danger of extinctionthroughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened Likely to become an endangeredspecies throughout all or a significant portion of its range, identified and defined in accordancewith the ESA.

* From Lichatowich, SASSI and FEMAT.



3. Habitat: The lower 2.8 miles of the Big Quilcene and the lower 0.9 miles of the LittleQuilcene have excessively unstable stream channels, and the habitat of otherstreams already is, or is becoming degraded. Natural, on-going geologic conditions,coupled with upstream erosion from human impacts have caused large amounts of gravelto be deposited in the lower river, with the Big Quilcene characterized by gaveldeposition. Collins (1993)3 estimated the total deposition from RM 0 and RM 1 between1971 and 1993 at 50,000 cubic yards (cy) or about 2,400 cy/year. This is about 7 feetbetween RM 0 and RM 0.5 since 1971, and about 2 ft. between RM 0.5 and RM 1.0.

The habitat has been degraded dramatically from both natural causes and humanmanipulation of the river channel. In some years this has resulted in low flows duringcritical rearing times for fish, as well as serious flooding. The heavily manipulated lowerriver exhibits degraded habitat that needs better understanding before restoration isundertaken on behalf of either the natural resources or humans.

Because the annual production of water per unit of land in these rainshadow-influencedwatersheds is less than other areas, the vulnerability and the current status of the stocksof salmon inhabiting these streams call for extreme caution in planning forest andagricultural practices, residential development and restoration projects. According toLichatowich, given the current condition of the stocks, zero additional impact on salmonhabitat must be the target.

4. Water rights exceed actual flows. The City of Port Townsend derives the greatestpercentage of its domestic and industrial water from the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers.Two wells serve customers in the Tri-area. The City owns rights on 30 cfs. on the BigQuilcene River. Although the average flow of the Big Quilcene is about 200 cfs. thereare periods in late summer and early fall when the natural flow of the river can fall below30 cfs. (This information is based on very limited data.)

To supplement the City's main water supply, it owns 9.56 cfs. on the Little QuilceneRiver with a diversion at RM 7.2. Summer flows on the Little Quilcene have beenrecorded below 10 cfs. in 1927 and have averaged about 20 cfs. Winter flows averagedabove 90 cfs. The Little Quilcene's minimum instrearn flow at the diversion is 6.0 cfs.

For temporary storage, water is diverted to Lords Lake from the Little Quilcene, and

___________________________3 Brian Collins. Sediment Transport and Deposition in the Lower Big Quilcene River andEvaluation of Planned Gravel Removal for Flood Control. July 1993.



it is possible during times of low-flow or turbidity to divert water from the Big Quilcene toCity Lake. In exchange for the management and maintenance of the water system up to theBig and Little Quilcene diversions, the City contracts an average of 13.6 million gallons/day(21.1 cfs.), to the Port Townsend Paper Company. Additionally, some nearby areas receiveCity water: Hadlock-Irondale-Chimacum, the Naval Annex on Indian Island, Fort Flagler andFort Worden State Parks, and the U. S. Fish Lab on Marrowstone Island.

5. Instream flows are insufficient to support biological recommendations for fishresources and other wildlife and habitat needs. A conflict exists between the amount ofwater rights held by the City of Port Townsend, and the needs of native and wild fishresources. A gap between biological requirements and out-of-stream uses is likely to persistin perpetuity, but may be narrowed through a series of management actions.

Instream flow recommendations based on the Toe Width Method have recently determinedoptimum flows for fish resources. The optimum flows for chinook and chum spawning (Sep.- Jan.) are 198 cfs., for steelhead spawning (Feb. - Jun.) are 165 cfs., and for steelheadrearing (Jul. - Aug.) are 50 cfs. A comparison of actual instream flows to these findingsshows that, in recent low-flow years, only a small percentage of the needed flow wasavailable for spawning and rearing some species of fish.

Summer flows on the Little Quilcene have been recorded below 10 cfs in 1927 and averagedabout 20 cfs. Winter flows averaged above 90 cfs. during the same period. The optimumflows for chum spawning (Nov. - Jan.) are 85 cfs., for steelhead spawning (Feb. - Jun.) are 75cfs. and for steelhead rearing (Jul. - Oct.) are 20 cfs.

On-going demand on water for development on the smaller streams in eastern JeffersonCounty is impacting the instream flows and is widening the gap between the biologicalrequirements and what is available instream.

6. The diversion of water to the hatchery and the program of hatchery releases may havea significant impact on the river and native and wild fish resources. On the Big Quilceneanadromous fish usage is limited above RM 3.2 (Williams et al. 1975). The steep gradientand confined channel cause a scarcity of gravel for spawning (Hiss 1989), and lack of winterside-channels for cover (Zajac 1989). Cascades between RM 4.9 and 6.9



(Boomer 1990) and at RM 7.6 (Williams et al. 1975) may form barriers to fishmigration, although some may be only seasonal (Keller, WDFW pers. comm.).

6. a. Fish Passage Policy and the Effects of the Quilcene National FishHatchery Operation on Wild Fish Passages Big Quilcene River: The QuilceneNational Fish Hatchery (NFH), operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceis at RM 2.8. The hatchery is managed to pass no adult salmon upstream intoPenny Creek or the Big Quilcene River, under an agreement with WDFW andthe PNPTC (Boomer 1990). This practice keeps the Quilcene water intakevirtually free of salmon diseases. If adult salmon were passed upstream, thehatchery fish might be at risk to certain diseases, and this could alter fishreleases under various hatchery programs. Therefore, fish production in theQuilcene is dominated by hatchery releases (Lichatowich).

Quilcene NFH personnel operate an electric weir from May through January toguide chinook, chum, and coho salmon into the hatchery for spawning. Theweir also prevents adult salmon from migrating upstream of the hatchery.When operating, the weir creates an electric field that usually stops all fishfrom moving upstream However, the weir may allow some fish to pass duringpower outages, since no backup generator is available. Fish blocked by theweir may either ascend the adjacent fish ladder to the hatchery or movedownstream to spawn naturally. Fish entering the hatchery are either spawnedthere or released downstream of the weir. Hatchery personnel have not passedany adult fish upstream since 1990.

The weir operation affects the migration of spring chinook, fall chum, andcoho salmon, most of which are spawned in the hatchery, and occasionallyintercepts stray pink and sockeye salmon. Of these species, only coho arelikely to naturally ascend beyond the weir, given the opportunity. To fully usethe river's natural capacity to produce coho above the weir, 24,000 coho fry arereleased above the hatchery annually (Boomer 1990); the number released wascalculated to fully stock the available rearing area. The weir can also directsummer chum into the hatchery, although few Quilcene summer chum ascendthis far upriver.

The weir may also affect the early migration of winter steelhead bound forpoints beyond the hatchery in December and January, but the number of fish isunknown (WDFW et al. 1993). The electrical current is shut off from Februarythrough April. Thus, steelhead,

______________________5 Description provided by Ron Wong, Manager and Larry Telles, Assistant Manager, Quilcene

NFH to J. Hiss, USFWS. All remarks are theirs unless another reference is cited.



which normally spawn between February through June (WDFW et al 1993), can pass upstreamfreely during this period. The shutdown period also probably allows most sea-run cutthroat troutto .migrate freely. The WDFW has annually released rainbow trout to create a put-and-takefishery upstream of the hatchery, and has occasionally released cutthroat as well.

Penny Creek Passage: Penny Creek is considered capable of producing only very small numberof anadromous fish due to its steep gradient and possible natural blocks to migration near theQuilcene River. The hatchery is constructed to block all fish migration into the Creek; thisbenefits the hatchery by ensuring a water supply uncontaminated by disease-bearing migratoryfish.

6. b. Effects of Quilcene Hatchery Water Diversions on Instream FlowThe Quilcene NFH draws water from the Big Quilcene River at approximately RM 3.1 andreturns it to the river below the hatchery. The hatchery has two water rights on the Big Quileene,a senior right certificate for 15 cfs. and a junior right permit for 25 cfs. (Lehotsky 1993). Thesenior right was granted in 1946 with no conditions; the junior right permit was provisionallygranted in May of 1991 under these conditions:

1. Diversion shall maintain flow in the bypass reach of 50 cfs from July I to January 31,and 165 cfs from February I to June 30, but at no time shall diversions be required to fallbelow 15 cfs. (Lehotsky 1993). This condition was based only on steelhead spawning andrearing, using Beecher's (1980a) toe width measurements Salmon were not considered,apparently because the hatchery weir blocks their migration into the bypass reach.

2. The hatchery must monitor combined flow from the two hatchery intakes, monitorinstream flow in the bypass reach, and modify the screens in the hatchery intake structure(Lehotsky 1993); Washington Department of Ecology will grant final water rightcertificates when they are satisfied with the above changes

Penny Creek: The hatchery has two unconditional water rights on Penny Creek for a total of 25cfs. However, this is more than the Creek can supply in drier months. The hatchery depends onPenny Creek as its sole source of water for egg incubation, and as supplemental water for rearingin the raceways when water from the Big Quilcene become more turbid than desirable.



6. c Potential for Dewatering StreamsSeveral questions have been raised about the potential of dewatering the bypass reach(Volk 1994). Complete dewatering is impossible because the permeable riprap aroundthe hatchery intake ensures some flow downstream. The junior water right permit, ineffect since 1993, requires very substantial flow at all times in the bypass reach. Inanswer to specific questions:

1. Timing of low water problems: The hatchery water supply is likely to becomecritical as early as June, although a prolonged cold spell could have the sameeffect in the winter.

2. Location of low water: The bypass reach extends from the hatchery at RM 2.8 tothe intakes at RM 3.1.

3. Timing and source of hatchery water supplies: The hatchery draws water from theBig Quilcene River and Penny Creek, depending more on Penny Creek when theBig Quilcene becomes undesirably turbid for fish culture.

4. Resources affected: Flows may drop below levels required for steelheadspawning and rearing in the bypass reach when the senior water right is beingexercised. Instream flow is also reduced in the lower 0.1 mile of Penny Creek,which may support small numbers of rainbow trout released to create aput-and-take fishery.

5. Measures to prevent resource damage from hatter/withdrawal: Maintain instreamflow as a condition of the junior water right described above.

7. Although the City withdrawals have been manned when possible to accommodatethe needs of the native and wild and hatchery fish in critical low-flow times, a moredefined system is needed to protect fish resources. Although Washington water lawdistributes water on a seniority basis, the City has shown a willingness to operate tobenefit fish resources. Using the shared sacrifice concept developed by the RegionalPlanning Group, all beneficial uses of water should share the burdens and benefits ofnatural fluctuations in the amount of stream flow available. The concept of a flexibletarget for instrearn flows in the river is intended to address natural fluctuations ininstream flows. The shared sacrifice strategy is intended to allow both instrearn andout-of-stream needs to share the pain of water-short years and the gain of abundant ones.Although the City must maintain a sufficient level of water to provide for user's needs,an attempt will be made to reconcile all needs including the Mill; the hatchery; otherswith water rights; and native and wild salmonids.



8. Insufficient technical information on both ground- and surface-water has hamperedunderstanding of, and responding to the needs of the native and wild fish in thesewatersheds, as well as general water planning efforts. Recent optimum instream flows(Hiss, 1993) for Quilcene area salmon and steelhead streams are accepted as thepreliminary levels needed to sustain the resources. Establishing these levels, coupled withinformation from the DQ-commissioned report showing the status of anadromous fishstocks in eastern Jefferson County, (Lichatowich) will provide preliminary informationneeded to more effectively manage the resources. Further refinement of the Toe WidthMethod or other biological criteria developed by the USFWS, on-going water useinventories, habitat capacity studies, and investigations of water rights may help fill thegap between available water and needs.

9. Wetlands and estuaries are being negatively impacted by land use practicesresulting in degraded wildlife, shellfish and fish habitats. These systems support anincredible diversity of wildlife organisms while providing recharge, water quality andflood control, and are being minimally protected in eastern Jefferson County. Siltationfrom up-stream land use practices, and filling, dredging and diking are some of theactivities impacting these critical ecosystems. The resulting loss in functions and valuescreates a cascading erect of declining species reaching all levels of organisms, fromsalmon to oysters, to insects, birds and mammals including the human species. Impactson humans of the loss or degradation of these ecosystems include the destruction ofcritical flood protection and water quality for ground water in hydraulic continuity tothese systems.

Areas where these ecosystems are being heavily impacted by development and land usepractices include Ludlow and the southern end of the County. These wetlands andestuaries feed into the small bays entering the Puget Sound and directly impact thewildlife, shellfish and fish resources, and the water quality of the entire area. Shellfishcontamination caused by land use, (as well as possible contamination from seals andother wildlife), is one of the results. Fecal contamination has caused decertification issome areas, and is an increasing concern in an area famous for its shellfish quality andproduction.

10. Ground water: An understanding of both the quantity and quality of ground waterin eastern Jefferson County is insufficient to protect this finite resource from bothpollution and over-allocation. There are areas in eastern Jefferson County which sufferfrom seawater intrusion and other forms of pollution, and there is concern that over-allocation may be occurring due to lack of information and ground-water protection inthe County.



In a rainshadow-influenced region with unique areas where no known surface waterinput contributes to aquifer recharge (i.e. Marrowstone Island and the MillerPeninsula), it is critical to have a comprehensive understanding of the status of theground-water resource. Although preliminary studies have been done, the existing levelof information is insufficient to provide the means for adequate land use planning andprotection of ground water. The results of a recent preliminary study showed that therehas been a significant increase in the chloride content in four out of nine measuredwells over the last fifteen years, and seawater intrusion has become an increasinglypervasive problem in some areas including Shine, Mats-Mats, Oak Bay andMarrowstone Island. Because of increased population growth and land use pressures,more wells are being drilled daily and there is concern for the status of ground water ineastern Jefferson County.6

Changing land uses and development, especially in the Tri-area, have increasinglyput pressure on the ground water, with wells being dug under the 5000 gallon exemption,and no comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of increased drilling on the resource.Ground water near the Big Quilcene, and in other areas in hydraulic continuity with areasrivers and streams is in danger of over-use, resulting in the possibility of low instreamflows. Water quality is also a concern, and no coordinated program exists for itsprotection in the County.

11. Lack of Data: Not enough is known about the status of the water resources ineastern Jefferson County. A comprehensive water resources study to determine thesurface and ground water quality and quantity is needed. Current land use decisionsshould be made on comprehensive data; a complete study is needed in order for adequateprotection and predictability of water resources in the region to occur.

12 There is inadequate water resources and rights administration by the State. Due tobudgetary restraints and other problems, the Department of Ecology has an enormousback-log of water rights applications. This has resulted in an increased occurrence ofwells which are dug with no permit, and with no understanding of the quantity or qualityof the resources. The inadequate management and administration by the State, coupledwith the lack of information on quantity or quality, results in the possibility of irreversibleover-allocation or damage to the ground-water resources. Compounding this situation isthe over-all cloudiness and legal uncertainty consequent to the Sinking Creek case(decided late 1992 by Washington's Supreme Court). Without legislative action onparticipation,

__________________6 Robert Forbes and CH2MHill. Preliminary Assessment of Seawater Intrusion inCoastal Water Wells in Eastern Clallam and Eastern Jefferson Counties. October 1993.



procedure and authority in the water rights issuance process, it appears that delay anduncertainty will prevail.

Winter field trip looking at habitat needs on the Big Quilcene



Recommendations and ActionsWater Resource Management

Watershed CouncilJ.1 A council which is representative of all interests (multi-government/

Tribal/agency and public interest groups) should be established. The general purposeis to continue eastern County water resource discussions and to oversee theimplementation of the DQ Plan. The general mission should include issue clarification,continuing conflict resolution, a "watch dog" capacity and education on water resourceissues. This should be a public process advocating watershed perspectives in considerationof project proposals on the rivers in eastern Jefferson County.

J.1.1 The Eastern Jefferson County Watershed Council should coordinatewith the proposed Eastern Clallam County Watershed Council to combinefunding efforts, share experiences, avoid competition and duplication ofefforts. The Councils should coordinate activities with other groups such as theHood Canal Coordinating Council, the Nisqually Council, Kitsap groups, etc.

J.1.2 Representatives from each Council should meet as needed to discuss regional issuesor joint actions.

J.1.3 The Watershed Council should be funded locally and supplemented by State andother grants.

WATERSHED COUNCILGovernments &

Public Interest Groups

Other sub-groups to be determined(habitat specialists, public groups, etc.)



HABITAT RECOMMENDATIONSJ.2 General Habitat Recommendations: See General Habitat recommendations in Chapter

5, Regional Strategies and Recommendations.

Channel Stabilization and Gravel TrapsJ.3 Gravel aggradation has been identified as a major limiting factor in native and

wild fish production and flood control. Debate and analysis on the use of graveltraps as an interim solution to gravel aggradation in the Dungeness River brought upquestions about the appropriateness of their use on the Big Quilcene River. Ashort-term study was done by Brian Collins focusing on sediment transport anddeposition in the Lower Big Quilcene River, and an evaluation of planned gravelremoval for flood control. In the summary of that study Collins suggests a monitoringprogram for the purpose of determining the gravel trap's effectiveness, as well asanalysis needed in the context of fluvial geomorphology and hydraulic engineering.He recommends that the feasibility of alternative approaches be evaluated with site-and river-specific geomorphic and hydraulic analysis, in light of the location, size andduration of sediment sources, and with careful consideration of the biological context.

Since the effects of gravel traps on stream channel morphology are poorly understoodat present, and such traps do not address the underlying processes causing excesssedimentation, the following is recommended:

J.3.1 Coordinate habitat management through the proposed Watershed Councilin conjunction with the FEMAT process and other State and Federalwatershed planning and assessment processes. Continue further studies asrecommended by Brian Collins and the Geomax study,' to provide the basis forfuture habitat management strategies and monitoring.

J.3.2 Monitor and analyze any cumulative effects of past and future gravelextraction. A comprehensive approach to bank stabilization and gravelremoval should be used as a part of the over-all habitat management scheme.

J.3.3 Evaluate the feasibility of dredging, and other alternatives with carefulconsideration of the biological context, including negotiating the purchaseof conflicting land use and development rights.

____________________7 Geomax. Comprehensive Flood Management Plan for the Big Quilcene and DosewallipsRivers. Jefferson County Public Works. 1994.



Habitat RestorationJ.4 Habitat which has been destroyed or degraded in eastern Jefferson County should

be enhanced and restored, and areas not-yet-impacted should be maintained andprotected.

Background Watershed Assessments on the Big Quilcene River: Water management onthe Big Quilcene River may be affected by watershed plans under the ForestEcosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT).8 This federal interagency grouphas created a geographical hierarchy of planning teams, reaching down to the level ofindividual river basins. The local FEMAT group is the Big Quilcene Local InteragencyTeam. It includes the Quilcene Ranger District of the Olympic National Forest, theOlympia Ecological Services Office of the USFWS, the Quilcene NFH, also part ofUSFWS, and the concerned Tribal entities. The Preliminary Watershed Assessment ofthe Big Quilcene Basin was completed April, 1994. This assessment names thethreatened, endangered, and candidate fish and wildlife species in the basin andmentions that instream flows may affect some of these populations. This Assessmentwill justify resource restoration planning for this fiscal year, leading to a PilotWatershed Analysis for the Big Quilcene Basin, due October 1994, with follow-uprestoration projects in the following years.

Elsewhere in eastern Jefferson County, habitat restoration and enhancement are off to astrong beginning. Locally and regionally-grounded groups (primarily Wild OlympicSalmon, with land owners, and the Jefferson County Conservation District) haveapplied the conclusions and results of research and studies to a number of streams.Federal, State, Tribal, and County agencies are backing some of the work; many areall-volunteer projects with continuing monitoring and management by Wild OlympicSalmon, et al. In Chapter 4, Information Resources and Habitat Projects, restorationworks-in-progress or projects recently completed are described, as well as otherparticipants involved in the efforts or the funding of them. Thematically, theseactivities translate research and survey into improved aquatic habitat, particularly forwild salmonid species native to each river or stream.

In the future, watershed assessments will be needed for each small stream and sub-watershed in eastern Jefferson County.

_____________________8 From C. Amato, USFWS/ES Olympia, Ecological Service Office, pers. comm. with J. Hiss,USFWS.



J.4.1 Restoration Efforts: Develop a pilot habitat restoration project on one streamas an example of what can and should be done on degraded streams andrivers in the region. Seek joint funding and participation by multi-government/agency and interest groups.

J.4.2 Restoration Project Analysis: Analyze past habitat restoration projects tounderstand their long-term, cumulative impacts, and to aid in planningfuture projects. This includes analysis of those projects previously considered"unsuccessful."

Restoration Activities of Wild Olympic Salmon (WOS)



Rivers and Instream FlowsInstream FlowsJ.5 Instream flows should be protected and supplemented, and improved in the

future as possible, to provide flows needed for stocks of salmonids and otherspecies in the area's rivers and streams. Refer to the end of this Chapter for theInstream Flow Needs for Fishery Resources in Jefferson County.

Discussions on setting instream flows consumed a great deal of the time of bothCounty Work Groups and the RPG as a whole. In Jefferson County the discussionsrevolved around the following concerns: hydraulic continuity with rivers and smallstreams, how realistic were the optimum recommended flows given the actual flows inthe stream and the lack of long-term stream-flow data, the affect on the City andhatchery of limiting additional water rights on rivers by placing specific flowrecommendations in the DQ Plan, and how might nature be "mimicked" in water useand habitat restoration efforts.

The following recommendations imply that water use at all points in the stream systemmust be managed to ensure adequate flows throughout. Considering the streams forwhich actual flows have been routinely measured, the actual average recorded flowstend to be less than the recommended flows during some periods of the year on allstreams. Comparison of recommended flows to hydrologic records suggest that, inmany study streams further water appropriation will reduce fish habitat value exceptduring high flow events. Some streams appear more sensitive than others to furtherwithdrawals, based on the number of months during which observed flows are likely tobe less than recommended flows (Hiss).

J.5.1 No new surface water rights or permits should be issued for rivers andstreams in eastern Jefferson County, until such time as instream flows foreach specific stream are adopted by rule.9 Improved biological criteria forsetting instream flows should be developed.J.5.1.1 Off-stream water consumption and land use should be managed to

protect, supplement, and improve instream flows in the future aspossible.

J.5.1.2 The Washington Department of Ecology, in cooperation with otherappropriate agencies should refine the Toe Width Method to moreaccurately represent fish habitat areas on small streams, and biological

9 RCW 90.22.040 allows Ecology to continue to issue permits in "closed basins" forstockwatering requirements, (out-of-stream watering devices), to improve water quality forthe public interest.



criteria developed for streams where the Toe Width Method or the Instream FlowIncremental Method (IFIM)9 cannot be used. Specifically, the method shouldaccount for the value of woody debris and other non-alluvial features that affectthe shape and size of the channel.

J.5.1.3 On the Big Quilcene, the Instream Flow study conducted by Hosey andAssociatesl0 may prove useful in refining the required fish flows. The Hosey studyused the IFIM, which is based on far more detailed information than the ToeWidth Method applied by Beecher (1980a). The Point-No-Point Treaty Council iscurrently reviewing the reliability of the Quilcene IFIM report's data and methods.If the report is acceptable, all concerned agencies should jointly interpret theresults to refine the instream flow recommendations.

J.5.1.4 First priority for storage from the Big or Little Quilcene rivers should be given toimprove the biological conditions of the streamway.

J.5.2 The proposed Watershed Council should establish instream flows forrecommendation to the State for adoption by rule, for all streams in eastJefferson County, except the Big Quilcene River.

If the Watershed Council has not accomplished this task in three years, theDepartment of Ecology should move to establish instream flows based on thebest available biological criteria.

J.5.3 Negotiations between the major users and water rights holders on the BigQuilcene River should work towards improving instream flow conditions. TheCity of Port Townsend, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and the Port TownsendPaper Mill have started discussions, which the State has joined in an attempt tobetter manage instream flows on the Big Quilcene River with the goal to returnsome flows to instream uses. Others are invited to participate in the discussions. Theparties agree to work on moving actual flows closer to the instream flow numbers inthe Hiss tables, keeping in mind the concepts of the Gap and shared sacrifice.

__________________________9 See Chapter 6, Problem Definition 3, for an explanation of IFIM and "usable wetted area."10 Hosey & Associates, Jefferson County PUD #1. The Instream Flow and Aquatic Mitigation

Proposal for the Big Quilcene Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project # 5202-00. 1985.



The group will be working on an agreement on Big Quilcene flow levels,contingency plans, and other river flow issues. They will try to agree on"goals" for the flows, develop a flow model, and work towards a finalinstream flow program for the Big Quilcene River. It is possible that TrustWater Rights or a Memorandum of Understanding will provide themechanism to accomplish this agreement. It is hoped that a plan will becompleted this summer, for a 5 year interim policy.

J.5.4 At the point that optimum instream flow recommendations using theIFIM, or an improved methodology are established for streams ineastern Jefferson County, the instream flow numbers should beadopted by rule. The IFIM should be reviewed and re-evaluated by theWatershed Council to analyze the appropriateness of the instream flowlimits, taking advantage of improvements in newly developed biologicalcriteria for determining instream flow recommendations. An attemptshould be made to achieve optimum flows, keeping in mind the conceptsdeveloped by the RPG of the GAP and shared sacrifice. The instreamflows that are set will not affect existing water rights.

Using the IFIM and plotting the amount of fish habitatvs. the stream discharge, the "maximum habitat flow"or "optimum instream flow" represents the dischargerelated to the highest maximum point in the "wettedusable area." What is optimum instream flow in anygiven month also depends upon the species in question.The Toe Width Method is the other commonly usedmethod to determine flows. With this method, the"optimum instream flow" represents spawning habitatonly, by species, and is derived from a linear modelwhich relates the spawning habitat area to the discharge.



J.5.5 Instream flow programs for cooperative agreements for other streams shouldbe pursued. It is hoped that the proposed Watershed Council will develop suchprograms.

J.5.6 Instream Flows/Water Rights: The following are general recommendations toprotect and provide more water for Instream flow:J.5.6.1 Encourage the establishment of a fund to purchase existing water rights for

instream flows.J.5.6.2 Where applicable, explore the possible transfer of surface water rights to

ground water without losing priority dates.J.5.6.3 Condition future water rights to protect existing water rights and instream

flow requirements.

J.5.7 Water Quality: In order to protect the quality of surface and ground water inthe region, cooperative agreements such as the Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the U.S.D.A.-Forest Service, Olympic National Forestand the City of Port Townsend should be used as a model in other watershedplanning efforts.12 This agreement enhances water quality protection for thewatersheds of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. This Watershed ProtectionProgram commits both parties to cooperative implementation of the water qualityprotection measures spelled out in the agreement. This excellent example ofmulti-jurisdictional responsibility and cooperation should be used in planning forregion-wide watershed protection.

Forest Practices and Wildlife ManagementJ.6 Recommendations for these areas can be found in the Chapter 5, Regional

Recommendations. The Jefferson County Work Group focused a great deal of time andenergy on these topics. There is great concern about the need for better management inthese areas; therefore an effort was made to develop recommendations for wildlife andforest practices which would apply region-wide.

__________________________12 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Port Townsend and U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympic National Forest. May 1993.



Fish Management

J.7 Fish ManagementGeneral Recommendations are found in Chapter 5, Regional Recommendations. R. 11

J.7 Fish management should protect critical, high potential of becomine/being critical anddepressed stocks of salmonids and other native and wild fish in the rivers in theregion. See Figures 7.3 & 7.4, Life History Periods (Quilcene River), Run Timing &Fishing/Quilcene Bay.

J.7.1 Analyze hatchery impacts: analyze impacts and cumulative effects of hatcheryoperations on native and wild fish stocks, and manage to protect and provide fornative and wild salmonids and other fish species. See Table 7.3 for information. onthe permitted diversion from the Big Quilcene River into the National Fish Hatchery(NFH).J.7. 1.1 Quilcene NFH Water Use and Fish Passage Practices: The hatchery is

managed to pass no adult salmon upstream into Penny Creek or the BigQuilcene River, under an agreement with WDFW and PNPTC (Boomer,1990). This practice keeps the Quilcene water intake virtually free of salmondiseases. If adult salmon were passed upstream, hatchery fish might be atrisk to certain diseases, and this could alter fish releases under varioushatchery programs, including those specified under the Hood Canal SalmonManagement Plan.

J.7.1.2 See the Problem Definition 6 for the complete description of the fish passagepolicy, effects of the hatchery operation and a description of the hatcherywater supply.

Table 7.3 Permitted diversions from Big Quilcene River into Quilcene NFH, & requiredinstream flow in hatchery bypass reach. Source: Lehotsky (1993)

Months Flow (cfs) in BigQuilcene River abovehatchery intakes

Maximum hatcherydiversion (cfs) permittedfrom Big Quilcene

Required flow (cfs) inhatchery bypass reachof river

Greater than 205 cfs 40 cfs 165 cfs180 to 205 cfs 15-40 cfs (Flow above

intakes minus 165 cfs)165 cfs

Feb-Jun

Less than 180 cfs 15 cfs No requirementGreater than 90 cfs 40 cfs 50 cfs65 to 90 cfs 15-40 cfs (flow above

intakes minus 50 cfs)50 cfs

Less than 65 cfs 1 15 cfs No requirement '~

Jul-Jan



Flood Plain ManagementJ.8 Protect and in some cases restore flood plain and estuarine habitat to provide

functions and values necessary for native and wild or hatchery fish and other wildliferesources, as well as provide protection for life, safety and Property.

R.8.1 As can be accomplished, remove development already in the flood plain,providing both protection for human lives and property, and habitat renewalopportunities. Residents already occupying the flood plain should be able to livethere as long as they want, acknowledging the possibilities of flooding threats.Evaluate alternatives to maintaining dikes. R8.2 Establish a fund to purchase floodplain properties and residences as they become available.

Hydrologic Research and Data ManagementJ.9 Because data is needed to more fully understand and plan for the water resources in

the region, hydrogeologic investigations should be pursued in Jefferson County todetermine what the surface and ground-water resources are and will be in the future.

See the research and data management recommendations contained in Chapter 9, TechnicalSupport.

Chimacum Estuary



Ground Water

J.10 Ground Water Recharge Preservation(Adapted from the Water Resource's Forum Policy.)

PreambleIn many areas, the ground-water reservoir is critical to maintaining stream flowduring dry periods. It is also an important source of water for domestic and otheruses. In the process of development, recharge to ground water is typically reducedby land disturbance and increased impervious surfaces. It is often the only sourceof supply in areas not in continuity with streams. As a result of loss of rechargedry-period hydrologic base flows may become inadequate to provide aquatichabitat and/or fish passage. Increased direct surface runoff during wet periodscauses flooding and damage to stream channels.

Policies to maintain both the quality and quantity of ground water are needed. Toprotect hydrologic base flows and existing water rights, such policies mustprovide for reasonable maintenance of the natural water resources processes.

These ground-water recharge preservation policies require funding of programs atthe local level. It is recognized that funding mechanisms or authorities need to beexercised or developed to fully implement the range of identified mandates.

The ProblemGround water is a limited and variable resource which may be depleted orreplenished. Maintaining its quantity and quality depends upon maintaining thebalance between recharge and outflow/withdrawal. Recharge depends upon thecapacity of the land surface to capture and infiltrate water and of the immediatesubstrate to permit its percolation.

Because infiltration and recharge depends upon detention of water by vegetationand its litter, and upon soil and drainage characteristics which are easily disrupted,land and subsurface disturbance nearly always adversely impacts the quantity ofinfiltration and recharge.

Urbanization and other land surface disruptions generally have an impact ongroundwater recharge, and may affect water rights. Historically land use decisionsand other allocations of water resources have not considered the disruption ofrunoff and recharge



relationships. For example, water availability may change over time asurbanization and other land surface disruptions alter ground-water recharge.Decreased ground-water recharge and changes in the seasonal discharge tosurface waters can have marked effects on seasonal stream flow regimes, theamount of ground-water storage, and existing ground and surface water rights.

Not only does recharge have to be maintained, manuals need to be reevaluated.For instance, stormwater drainage manuals stipulate that peak flows must belimited to some historically occurring value but do not stipulate the maintenanceof any given level of ground-water recharge for protection of hydrologic baseflows and water rights. (Studies are lacking too, that quantify what recharge isnecessary to maintain hydrologic base flows.) Evaporative losses from surfaceand subsurface disruptions need to be taken into account.

The potential for property rights and water rights conflicts exists. Landownerswant to be free to convert their land to other than a pristine or existing conditionswhile water rights holders depend upon the existing relationships that deliver thewater to which they have rights.

J.10.1 PrinciplesJ.10.1.1 Ground water and surface water within most basins are in a

natural interrelationship and should be managed as an integratedhydrologic system.

J.10.1.2 Ground water is the essential storage link between precipitationand most summer stream flow, hydrologic base flows and wellwater supply, aquifer stability, and ground-water resources(except the flow from glaciers and snow melt). Local recharge isoften the only source of hydrologic base flow in small basins.

J.10.1.3 Infiltration recharges the ground-water reservoir which is criticalto maintaining stream flow, hydrologic base flow and well watersupply, aquifer stability, and ground-water resources especiallyduring dry periods.

J.10.1.4 Recharge is not limited to small areas of a watershed.J.10.1.5 Protection of infiltration characteristics must be an integral part of

resource management plans.J.10.1.6 In those basins where recharge has been significantly impacted

resource management plans must consider methods to increaseground-water recharge.



J.10.2 Policy Purposes to Guide Regional PlanningJ.10.2.1 To maintain and enhance hydrologic base flows and well water supply,

aquifer stability, and ground-water resources through rechargemanagement.

J.10.2.2 To encourage education and coordination between governmentagencies responsible for permitting.

J.10.2.3 To elevate the importance of maintaining and where appropriaterestoring recharge through growth management planning policies.

J.10.2.4 To manage the quantity of ground water in any basin to: a. Maintainhydrologic base flows to sustain instream and riparian habitat; b.Satisfy existing ground-water withdrawal rights including exemptwells; c. Provide stream flow to satisfy surface water rights.

J.10.2.5 To identify and institute socially and economically cost effectivemeans to restore and maintain ground-water recharge.

J.10.2.6 To encourage the State to provide necessary technical and financialassistance to local governments, to assist in evaluation of rechargeimpacts.

J.10.3 PoliciesJ.10.3.1 All areas should be considered as significant to the recharge of ground

water.J.10.3.2 Recharge needs to be addressed at all levels of government in a

coordinated planning effort to maintain recharge.J.10.3.3 In all cases, plan and design land uses to prevent adverse impacts on

recharge quality and quantity.J.10.3.4 Maintain clean water to the ground water.J.10.3.5 In basins with hydrologic base flow problems and where BMP's alone

are not sufficient to address the problems, further measures must beused which may include direct enhancement to levels sufficient tomaintain hydrologic base flows and provide for good water quality.

J.10.3.6 Water quality and quantity must be considered in the evaluation ofrecharge protection and enhancement activities.

J.10.4 Application of PoliciesPolicies to assure protection of ground-water quality and adequate recharge should beaddressed in all land and water management plans, programs, and in regulations at allstages of planning; and in development, project execution and long-term maintenance



activities by all levels of government. Recharge should be addressed through land useplanning, resource management planning, and implementation of those plans.

J.10.5 Needs at the Local LevelThe following are needed to implement the policies:

J.10.5.1 Technical and financial resources for addressing recharge, which areinadequate for the DQ Area.

J.10.5.2 Development of programs to provide assistance for addressing rechargein the DQ area, especially in Eastern Jefferson County where technicaland financial resources are inadequate.

J.10.5.3 Development of a recharge guidance manual to aid in the assessment andresolution of infiltration/recharge issues.

J.10.5.4 Recognition that ground-water recharge is always important, especially:a. where hydraulic continuity is likely; b. in areas impacted by saltwaterintrusion; c. in sole-source aquifers that are isolated, and may be fed onlythrough rainfall.

J.10.6 Implementation ToolsThe following are implementation tools that should be considered. The appropriatenessof specific practices to promote recharge will depend on local site conditions.

J. 20.6.1 Specific consideration should be given to the effects of development oninfiltration and recharge quantity and quality when developing orreviewing comprehensive land use plans, and in the development ofregulations promulgated as a result of the Growth Management Actand/or other regional or local planning initiatives. Design manualsshould be developed reflecting these impacts. Development regulationsshould provide a method for assessing proposed actions against adoptedperformance standards.

J.10.6.2 State agencies, Tribes, and other proponents should provide technicalassistance/guidance in identifying: 1) when recharge impacts adverselyimpact hydrologic base flows and other existing water rights (throughhydraulic continuity); 2) the means of limiting and/or mitigating thoseimpacts. Small basin and site specific programs should be developed togather data regarding rainfall, runoff, evapotranspiration, and recharge.The database should be maintained and updated on a 5 year cycle, orwhen substantial changes take place.

J.10.6.3 A manual should be developed by the Department of Ecology, inconjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and the



Department of Health, to assist local governments and others in theirplanning and permitting processes. The manual should addressdevelopment impacts on the aquifer, recharge, and stream flow. Theimportance and value of preserving and promoting infiltration andrecharge for summer flows, by reducing winter losses in the surfacerunoff generated by disturbed surfaces, should be emphasized. ItemsJ.10.6.4-7 listed below should be considered as separate tools, prior tocompletion of the manual as well as after. In addition to the above, alocally developed plan should be included in the next CWSP update.

J.10.6.4 Specific considerations of the effects of development on infiltrationand recharge quantities should be applied to project review under theSEPA process. When development regulations are based on the goalsand objectives established under comprehensive plans which addressrecharge, SEPA review at the project level then becomes the finalevaluation of plan implementation.

J.10.6.5 Project level review and the performance based standards shouldconsider but not be limited to the following: a. Avoiding the disruptionof the natural soil drainage channels to the maximum extent feasibleand encouraging natural vegetation; b. Mitigation that provides for arange of options such as the retention and slowing of runoff, theredirection of clean storm water to remaining pervious surfaces, andartificial recharge; c. Options for small parcels, including actions takenat the individual single home site level. These often provide the bestopportunities for maintaining effective recharge. Outside the SEPAframework, education mechanisms, incentives, and such measures aslandscape codes should be developed and encouraged for individualhome site development.

J.10.6.6 The SEPA Environmental Checklist on Earth, Water, Wildlife andPlants should address probable impacts on infiltration capacity,surface runoff and ground-water recharge.

J.10.6.7 Consideration must be given to appropriate State surface and ground-water quality standards and local regionally developed watershedplans, as well as those established by local or regional wellheadprotection, aquifer protection or sole source aquifer regulations, orother local ground-water management programs.

J.10.6.8 Stormwater management programs may be one of the best methods formitigating serious impacts on recharge. These could includeinfiltration maintenance and/or enhancement and should be promotedwhere



possible. Local governments should be encouraged to support the Puget Sound WaterQuality Plan or equivalent planning efforts, and should adopt the PSWQA "manual" orequivalent by the date of the completion of the comprehensive plans, December 31,1994. Where applicable, other provisions may include:a. Avoiding removal of native vegetation and surface disruption in construction and

subsequent land use practices;b. Using and enhancing native vegetation and landscaping for habitat that exploit the

natural contours and surfaces which will promote infiltration;c. Diversion and spreading of runoff from rooftops, patios, and other clean impervious

surfaces onto preserved pervious surfaces, or for other beneficial uses;d. Terracing and other means of detaining runoff on-site to promote infiltration over as

large an area as possible. (More than forty percent of rainfall in the Puget Sound areacomes in daily amounts of less than one-half inch, 70 percent in daily amounts ofless than one inch.);

e. Using infiltration systems when appropriately designed and maintained;f. Using BUIP's as mechanisms to prevent adverse impacts on quality and quantity of

recharge.110.6.9 Provide more public education on the importance of recharge

maintenance to the health of streams. This would be a four part effort:a. Educate the general public on the importance of preserving recharge as a key to the

protection of wildlife and instream resources;b. Educate governments on the issues and opportunities to coordinate their actions to

preserve recharge. (This is of particular concern in the rural areas and urban fringeareas of the County);

c. Encourage local government to develop and provide education to home ownerassociations that have infiltration-based stormwater management systems that needto be maintained, and;

d. Educate and provide information to building contractors, landscape designers, landclearing operations personnel, and others in the building industry about theimportance of maintaining recharge characteristics, and the range of options thatmay be available for limiting impacts on recharge.

110.6.10 Long-term resource management programs, such as watershed andground-water management programs/plans and drainage manuals, shouldinclude as a goal and/or policy the maintenance and promotion of



recharge sufficient to maintain hydrologic base flow, and shouldinclude means for implementation.

J.10.6.11 The DQ encourages, through the Coordinated Water Supply Planprocess, that local governments support a detailed data acquisition andanalysis program (that furthers already completed work) on groundwater yields, quality, hydraulic continuity, and seawater intrusion.This could include implementation of the USGS work plan, seeChapter 9, Technical Support.

J.11 Ground-water Management

PreambleAs a finite resource, ground water in the region needs protection from both pollutionand over-allocation. Although preliminary studies have been done to identify theresources, much remains unknown about the aquifers, the hydrologic interconnectionswith instream flows (hydraulic continuity), and what amount of sustained-yields areavailable for future uses; this information is critical to future planning, as each newwell drilled may have an impact on the area aquifers, instream flows and pollutionfrom seawater intrusion or other sources. Because seawater intrusion was recognizedas a threat to some water wells over 20 years ago, a preliminary assessment wascompleted of seawater intrusion in coastal wells in eastern Clallam and JeffersonCounties.13 The results showed that unlike Clallam County, there has been .asignificant increase in the chloride content in four out of nine measured wells over thelast fifteen years, and seawater intrusion has become an increasingly pervasiveproblem in some areas including Shine, Mats-Mats, Oak Bay and Marrowstone Island.Because of increased population growth and land-use pressures, more wells are beingdrilled daily and there is concern for the status of ground water in eastern JeffersonCounty.

_______________________13 Robert Forties and CH2MHill. 1993.



Map 7.1 Count of all Identified Water Wells in Square-Mile Sections, E. Jefferson County



J.11.1 Because of these concerns the following recommendations are made:J.11.1.1 The Department of Ecology should develop standards and assure that

wells will not detrimentally impact instream flow, contribute toseawater intrusion, adversely affect existing uses or hydrauliccontinuity.

J.11.1.2 New legislation should be established requiring permits for all newwells.

J.11.1.3 All future wells should be required to obtain a Department of Ecologywater permit.14 Ecology should propose legislation and develop awater permit system for all future wells which includes standards thatcan be used to provide proof that these wells are not:a. in hydraulic continuity with any stream or river;b. contributing to seawater intrusion concerns; orc. adversely affecting existing uses.After such standards are developed, all future wells should be requiredto comply with such requirements.

J.11.1.4 The Driller’s reports for all existing wells with less than 5000gallons/day use should be logged by the local health department andthe information entered into the DQ and Ecology databases. All wellsshould be logged and records kept at a local public agency.

J.11.1.5 In recognition that ground water may be relied upon in the future formunicipal supply, land-use plans and actions by governments (Countyand City) should recognize and protect aquifer recharge critical areas.In areas where development occurs around community wells, wellhead protection programs should be implemented.

J.11.1.6 Incentives should be developed by Ecology, the DOH and otheragencies to encourage community water systems. Such systems shouldbe metered. The consequences of joining a community system shouldbe made financially advantageous without subsidies. The communitysystems should be affordable and have sufficient infrastructure toprovide adequate maintenance and management services.

J.11.1.7 A complete ground-water study should be done, adding to theinformation from the Eastern Jefferson County Ground-WaterCharacterization study, to determine the ground-water resources, theirstatus, and to describe the aquifers and areas of risk accurately. Acomprehensive hydraulic continuity investigation should be completedto determine the impact of the management of the streams on groundwater.

_____________________________14 There was a lot of discussion about the results of this recommendations. Concerns included

costs of implementation and timeliness of issuing permits.



J.11.1.8 Land use patterns should be designed to encourage and influence thedevelopment of community well systems.

Water RightsJ.12 Determine what amount of surface water can be saved for transfer to instream flow,

and implement via trust water rights or other legal mechanisms. Abandoned waterrights should be evaluated and spare water rights returned to instream flows when possible. J.12.1 The State should redefine "beneficial uses" to allow for return of unused water to

augment instream flow, with no losses of water rights (e.g. the "use it or loss it"concept).

StorageJ.13 Storage and surface water runoff should be considered, especially in areas where no

surface or ground-water availability exists. Storage has been discussed as an option toregulate flows and provide water during critical times. It was agreed that there would be noon-river storage, though options for both large and small-scale, oil-channel storage shouldbe investigated as a part of the over-all management of the system.J.13.1 Conduct a survey of available storage opportunities.J.13.2 Complete a cost analysis of storage options, and compare it with a similar analysis

of other possible solutions. This should be done as a part of the update to theCoordinated Water System Plan.

J.13.3 Conduct a complete environmental analysis of preliminary storage options and sites.J.13.4 Identify current "mini" storage systems or practices which could be applied

elsewhere for family or small multi-family use.J.13.5 Restore the natural sponge capacity in wetlands and other vegetated areas and

provide incentives to reforest and retain existing resources, to provide additionalstorage of water resources. Complete a study of the effectiveness of employingincentives for property owners for restoring the natural storage capacity of their land.The BMP's as outlined in the PSWQA manual, especially those relating toconstructed wetlands and infiltration systems, should be considered to providestorage and ground-water recharge in the area.



ConservationGeneral Recommendations: See the general recommendations on Conservation in Chapter5, Regional Strategies and Recommendations.

ConservationJ.14 Practices should be implemented to provide conservation and better water

efficiency for eastern Jefferson County.J.14.1 The Port Townsend Paper Company Mill should further establish and continue

to implement water conservation strategies, and should establish water usagegoals.

114.2 The City of Port Townsend and the Jefferson PUD should continue conservationstrategies, and should establish water usage goals.

J.14.3 Jefferson County should establish conservation strategies, and establish waterusage goals through sub-division regulation and land use policies, includingvegetation management strategies.

J.14.4 All new development in the City and County should require water conservationmeasures and devices to provide the most efficient use of water resources. TheCity and County should also promote conservation retrofit measures on alreadybuilt homes.

J.14.5 A process should be devised related to agricultural water use to eliminatedisincentives to conservation and to allow on-going, orderly transfer of savedwater to instream flow needs, (e.g. eliminate the "use it or lose it" obstacle toconservation).



Indian Island and Portage Canal



Figure 7.1 Instream Flow Needs for Fishery Resources in Jefferson County

General Considerations:15

1. Choice of Species: Species occurrence in toe width study area follows the 1992 Salmon and SteelheadStock Inventory (SASSI), (WDF et al. 1993), except on Big and Little Quilcene; which historicallymay have supported natural chinook spawning.

2. Flow Protection in Context: Flow protection is an essential part of overall habitat protection, but cannotmake up for lost habitat area, access to habitat or diversity of habitat types. For example, riparian andestuarine wetlands provide cover and food for certain salmonid species in the DQ project area.

Stream Number Months Fish Flow(CFS)A

Species/Life Stage Source

Big Quilcene 17.0012 Sep-Jan 198 Chinook and Data ofRiver chum spawning Beecher

(1980a)appliedto modelof Swift

1979)

Feb-Jun 165 Steelhead Beecherspawning (1980x)

Jul-Aug 50 Steelheadrearing

Chevy Chase 17.0215Stream intermittent no suitable HissCreek measurement sites 1993bMainstem 17.0203 Nov-Jan 58 Chum spawning Data ofChimacum Creek Beecher

(1980x)appliedto modelof Swift

1979Feb-Jun 50 Steelhead Beecher

spawning (1980x)Jul-Oct 12 Steelhead

rearingEast Fork 17.0205 No suitable measurement sites HissChimacum Creek (1993b)

West Fork 17.0203 Nov-Jan_ 8 Coho spawningChimacum Creek

Feb-Jun 17 Steelheadspawning

Jul-Oct 3 Steelheadrearing

A. Spawning and rearing flows for the Dungeness River are the "maximum habitat flows" from the IFIM(Hiss 1993x). Spawning flows for all other streams are the "optimum flows" from the toe width method(Swift 1976, 1979). Rearing flows for all other streams are the "preferred flows" from the toe width method(Swift 1986, 1979). See Glossary for definitions.

____________________15 From Joe Hiss. Letter to DQ Project. March 8, 1994.



Figure 7.1 contd.Stream Number Months Fish Flow

(CFS)ASpecies/Life Stage Source

Contractors 17.0270 Oct-Jan 4 Coho Spawning HissCreek (1993b

Feb-May 8 Steelheadspawning

Jul-Sep 1 Steelheadrearing

Donovan Creek 17.0115 Nov-Jan 35 Chum spawning Data ofBeecher(1980a)appliedto modelof Swift(1979)

Feb-Jun 30 Steelhead Beecherspawning (1980a)

Jul-Oct 7 Steelheadrearing

Eagle Creek 17.0272Stream Intermittent; no suitable HissMeasurement sites or anadromousspawning reaches accessible by public road

(1993b)

East Squamish 17.0183Creek No suitable measurement sites

Howe Creek 17,0090 Nov-Jan 9 Coho spawningFeb-Oct 3 Coho rearing

Leland Creek 17,0077 Nov-Jan 22 Coho spawningFeb-Jan 40 Steelhead spawningJul-Oct 9 Steelhead raring

Little Quilcene River 17,0076 Nov-Jan 85 Chum Spawning Date ofBeecher(1980a)applied tomodel of swift(1979)

Feb-Jun 75 Steelhead spawning Beecher(1980a)

Jul-Oct 20 Steelhead rearing





Ludlow Creek 17,0192 Nov-Jan 16 Chum spawning HissFeb-Jun 16 Steelhead spawning (1993b)Jul-Oct 3 Steelhead rearing

Penny Creek 17,0014 Nov-Jan B Coho spawning B

Feb-Jun B Steelhead spawningJul-Oct B Steelhead rearing

Ripley Creek 17,0089 Nov-Jan 4 Coho spawning HissFeb-Oct 1 Coho rearing (1993b)

Salmon Creek 17,0245 Sep-Oct 43 Chum spawning Data ofNov-Feb Coho spawning Beecher

(1980a)applied tomodel of swift(19790r

Mar-May 40 Steelhead spawning BeecherJun-Aug 9 Steelhead rearing (1980a)

Shine Creek 17,0181 Nov-Jan 14 Chum Spawning HissFeb-Oct 2 Coho rearing (1993b)

Snow Creek 17,0219 Sep-Oct 66 Chum spawning Data ofNov-Jan 33 Coho spawning Beecher

(1980a)applied tomodel of swift(1979)

Feb-May 63 Steelhead spawning BeecherJun-Aug 8 Steelhead rearing (1980a)





Mainstem TarbooCreek

17,0129 Nov.-Jan 42 Chum spawning Date ofBeecher(1980a)applied tomodel of swift(1979)

Feb-Jun 40 Steelhead spawning BeecherJul-Oct 8 Steelhead rearing (1980a)

East Fork Nov-Jan 3 Coho spawning HissTarboo Creek Feb-Jun 8 Steelhead spawning (1993b)

Jul-Oct 1 Steelhead rearingThorndyke Creek 17,0170 Nov-Jan 50 Chum spawning Data of

Beecher(1980a)applied tomodel of swift(1979)

Feb-Jun 45 Steelhead spawning BeecherJul-Oct 10 Steelhead and coho

rearing(1980a)

Unnamed 17,0116Stream flow seasonal. HissUnnamed 17,0200 Nov-Jan 6 Chum spawning (1993b)

Feb-Oct 1 Coho rearing



Figure 7.2 USFWS Letter on Penny Creek Flows

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Western Washington Fishery Resource office2625 Parkmont Lane SW, Bldg. AOlympia, Washington 98502-5799

Phone: (206) 753-9460Fax: (206) 753-9407

April 28, 1994

Ms. Linda NewberryDungeness-Quilcene Pilot Project1033 Old Blyn Hwy.Sequim, Washington 98382

Dear Linda:

On April 1, 1994 Joe Hiss of this office took stream width measurements on Penny Creek,tributary to the Big Quilcene River. From these he derived stream widths as follows:

Site Stream Width at bank toe (ft)1 29.02 20.43 20.24 20.15 18.9Mean 21.7

He judged from the size of the stream that it would support coho salmon and steelhead trout ifthese fish had access to it. He assumed that spawn timing would match the Quilcene-Dabob cohoand steelhead runs, and that the stream would have enough summer flow to support coho andsteelhead rearing. Our 1993 Toe Width Report provided the formula for calculating optimumspawning flow and preferred rearing flow. Applying this formula to the Penny Creek widthvalues results in flows for each period as follows:

Species Life Stage Months Optimum or preferred flow (cfs)Coho Spawning Nov-Jan 31Steelhead Spawning Feb-Jun 55Steelhead Rearing Jul-Oct 13

No coho rearing flow was calculated because coho rearing coincides with steelhead rearing butrequires slightly less instream flow than steelhead according to the Toe Width models.



Figure 7.2 contd.

This information complements the flows we derived for other streams of theDungeness-Quilcene area, and comes at no extra cost to you.

Our providing this information does not indicate we wish to change the present use of PennyCreek, which is now primarily managed for hatchery water supply, and not for naturalproduction of anadromous fish. The Quilcene National Fish Hatchery depends on Penny Creekas its sole source of water for egg incubation, and for supplemental rearing water in the racewayswhen the Big Quilcene becomes more turbid than desirable. Penny Creek is considered capableof producing only very small number of anadromous fish due to its steep gradient and possiblenatural blocks to migration. The Hatchery is constructed so that no adult salmon pass upstreaminto Penny Creek. This keeps the Penny Creek water intake virtually free of salmon diseases. Ifsalmon were passed upstream, the hatchery fish might be at risk to certain diseases, which couldreduce fish releases to levels below those specified under the Hood Canal Salmon ManagementPlan.

We plan to continue to assist in the water use planning process by attending key meetings andreviewing documents as needed.

Sincerely,

Ralph S. BoomerProject Leader



Figure 7.3 Salmon & Trout Life History Periods in Quilcene River



Figure 7.3 contd.



Figure 7.4 Salmon and Steelhead Run Timing andFishing Seasons in Quilcene Bay(N. Lampsakis and C. Weller 1994)

Volume 1

Chapter 8

Implementation Strategies

Implementation Strategies 8.1

Chapter 8Implementation Strategies

IntroductionUnder the Chelan Agreement, the goals of the regional planning efforts were generallydescribed, and Regional Planning Guidelines were developed to give the pilot planning groupsbroad parameters within which to work. Unlike watershed action plans, the plan's developed byeach of the two pilots were not created under any State law, and therefore do not have anautomatic implementation mechanism or rule. This has concerned some of the RPG members,and caused questions about the out-come of the Plan, and what will happen to it after it ispresented to the Department of Ecology to "approve or remand." Because the planning periodand funding, and therefore the Regional Planning Group "dissolves" after June 30, 1994, there isno automatic, on-going entity or mechanism to implement the recommendations which weredeveloped with so much dedication, perseverance and hard work by the planning groupmembers. What follows are the possible strategies for implementation, given that there is not alegislated mandate to implement the Plan upon its completion.

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 as presented define the issues, problems and solutions reached by theRegional Planning Group, regarding the status and management of the water resources in theregion. Chapter 5 represents broader regional issues and concepts as well as some specifics.Chapter 6 defines issues, problems and solutions for the Sequim-Dungeness prairie andwatershed in east Clallam County, and Chapter 7 defines issues, problems and solutions in theQuilcene watershed, including Miller and Quimper peninsula and areas in the south east county.This Chapter describes in outline form the possibilities for implementation of the strategiespresented in those chapters in the entire region. A draft Work Plan and Timeline is also includedhere for future consideration by the proposed Watershed Councils.

Important Caveats to Consider

While the Regional Planning Group was not able to define in-depth implementation strategieswhich would be most effective to link the goals of the effort to the possible solutions to theproblems as defined in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, the following implementation charts are a startingpoint for consideration by each County. Because of time limitations, these have been drafted bystaff, and little consideration has been given to them by the RPG. Consensus has not beenreached on the "possible implementing agencies;" these are subject to revision and will be visitedin the future by the appropriate groups.


8.2 Implementation Strategies

Transition Period StrategiesUnder ideal circumstances transition period strategies would have been spelled out to bring thisPlan to life in the region. Because the intensity of the effort has focused all of the RPG's attentionon the issues and recommendations, very little time was available for considerations of either thetransition period or future implementation strategies. A few things are clear:

• The proposed Watershed Councils, including local governments and Tribes, are the mainkey to carrying out the recommendations;

• Funds are needed to implement many of the recommendations of the Plan and to providethe Watershed Councils with the ability to coordinate these efforts;

• There is a strong commitment on the part of the participants in the regional planningeffort to continue to carry forth at least the major recommendations in the DQ Plan.

The members of the DQ have been determined from the start to not create a Plan which would"sit on the shelf' after completion. To this end, discussions are starting to formulate the mosteffective way to proceed. In each County, preliminary meetings will be held in July 1994 tofurther define the concept of the Watershed Council, as the main mechanism for implementationof the strategies in the Plan. Funding will be sought by local governments and the Tribes toimplement major categories of the Plan.

The Watershed CouncilsThe Watershed Councils will be the main coordinating entity bringing all concerned participantstogether to plan for and implement strategies and actions spelled out in the Plan. Composed oflocal, Tribal, State and Federal governments and agencies, along with other community andpublic interests, these groups will best represent both the needs and expertise existing in eachCounty. This broad-spread representation will enable the Council to most effectively implementthe recommendations of the Plan, work on the "unfinished agenda" items and further extend thestrategies just started during the short planning process. Grants and other funding mechanismsare being sought, along with Legislative support, to implement the major components of the Planthrough the Council. This includes the water resources study needed to determine the quantityand quality of surface and ground water in the region. It is estimated that it will take 5 years tocomplete this study.



Summaries of Some of the Actions ProposedIn Clallam County: Already, some of the irrigation "Conservation and Instream Flow Steps"

(C.1-2) have started and will be continued, in cooperation with the DungenessWatershed Council. Restoration and enhancement projects have also started throughCentennial Clean Water grants and the Forest Plan "Jobs for the Environment," andfunding will be sought to continue to restore degraded river habitat to further help withinstream flow and wild fish needs, as well as for the water resources study. The proposedHabitat Group will work in conjunction with the Watershed Council to developimproved biological criteria for setting instream flows, and will advise the Council onother issues related to water resources and river management, restoration, enhancementand land use practices impacting the resource. A "ground water group" will meet tofurther define the "interim strategy" for protection of ground water for the next five years(C.11.2), and to begin to look at long-term needs and solutions for ground-water quantityand quality protection,

In Jefferson County: Discussions have started between the City of Port Townsend,Jefferson County, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and the State on instream flows onthe Big Quilcene River (1S). The Jefferson County Work Group gave itself (in the newWatershed Council format) three years to determine numbers for instream flows for thesmall rivers and streams that all participants could agree on for recommendation toEcology for rule setting. During that time period, it is expected that USFWS and theState will work together on improving biological criteria for establishing flows on smallstreams in the region.

After its formation, the proposed Watershed Council will be working to further defineimplementation strategies in Jefferson County under the CSWP and GMA planning inprocess there. Funding will be sought for the water resources study, and restorationefforts in coordination with existing FEMAT and State and Federal watershedassessment and planning processes. Ground-water issues will continue to be of majorimportance, (J.10), with the finalizing of the PUD plan, Ecology's seawater intrusionstudy, the proposed water resources study, and increased emphasis on single domesticwells and community systems, protection of recharge and management of the finitewater resources.



Regional Recommendations (R.)

Regional Use of Water R.1Use water from within the region, and keep water within the region.

The Gap R.2Reduce the water resource needs of both human's and natural ecosystems throughreducing the gap between the amount of water needed and that amount which is available.

Shared Sacrifice R.3Share the burdens and benefits of natural fluctuations in the amount of stream flowannually available.

ACTION CHART

PROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1994/1995

NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS

POSSIBLEIMPLEMENTINGAGENCY

COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR 1 Use water from within the area, and

keep water within the area***** ***** ***** Counties, Cities, PUDs,

StateR2 Narrow the GAP. ***** ***** ***** Watershed Council

including Cities,Counties, PUD's, Tribes,public interests

R3 Share the pain and share the gain. ***** ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities,Counties, PUD's, Tribes,public interests

The projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. As studies are undertaken, and changes made,some actions will need to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with other proposals found to be better or morefeasible.



Conservation R.4Institute conservation as a way of life for every water users as the most cost-effective wayto extend limited water supplies for the foreseeable future.

FURTHER:A. Develop a comprehensive regional water F. Enforce new construction standards on

conservation plan. plumbing fixtures.B. Develop a system to prioritize water uses for G. Encourage utilities to develop incentives for

times of critical need. Establish an emergency retrofits for all pre-existing housing.water conservation program. H. Define conservation to promote incentives for

C. Monitor the use of water. efficiency.D. Establish principles for all users throughout the 1. Draft measures to be used to conserve in water

area. short areas.E. Pursue and provide demonstration or model J. Establish a water resource conservation

projects to encourage conservation and reuse. education program.K. Investigate opportunities for using recharge fee,

incentives for saving and buyback programs.ACTION CHART

# PROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1994/1995

NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR4 Conserve water resources to extend limited

water supplies.***** ***** ***** Everybody

R.4.1 Develop and implement region-wideconservation and efficiency strategies.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest.

The projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. As studies are undertaken, and changesmade, some actions will need to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with other proposals found to be betteror more feasible.

LEGAL MECHANISMS R.5

Seek legal mechanisms to transfer conserved water to instream flows.



Ground Water R.6

Pursue technical investigations on the status of ground water, to maintain its quantity and qualityand to protect recharge and quantities for outflow /withdrawals.

FURTHER:A. Limit water use through conservation

programs.B. Meter community wells, and monitor selected

wells to calculate the total ground-waterwithdrawal from the region and to avoid themining of ground-water resources.

C. Encourage the use of community water systems.

D. Direct municipal and residential water suppliesto locations and depths so as to minimize tilerisk of hydraulic continuity.

E. Acknowledge that the affects of irrigationconservation on recharge may not bepredictable.

F. Mimic nature to allow recharge and runoff towetlands, small streams and ground water.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVE

YEARS

SIXTO 20

YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR.6 Pursue technical studies on the status of

ground water to protect ground water fromPollution or over-allocation and use.

***** ***** Watershed Council: includingCities, Counties, PUDs,Tribes, public interests

R.6.1 Limit volume of water use throughconservation.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Council: includingCities, Counties, PUDs,Tribes, public interests

R.6.2 Meter community wells, and monitorselected wells.

***** ***** ***** Cities, Counties, PUDs

R.6.3 Encourage the use of community watersystems.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Council: includingCities, Counties, PUDs,Tribes, public interests

R6.4 Direct municipal and residential watersuppliesto locations and depths so as to minimize therisk of hydraulic continuity,

***** ***** ***** Cities, Counties, PUDs

R.6.5 Acknowledge the impacts of irrigationconservation practices on recharge may notbe predictable.


R.6.6 Mimic nature to allow recharge and runoff towetlands, small streams and ground water.



Storage R.7No new storage is proposed due to habitat concerns, cost effectiveness, and lack of demonstrated need.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

sixTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR.7 No large on-river storage is proposed. *****



Habitat R.8Retain or restore structural and functional characteristics of wetland and riparian, riverand small stream habitats which are important to fish and wildlife.

FURTHER:A. Identify wetland, riparian and river and small

stream habitat according to their importancefor habitat, wildlife and fish values, hydrologicrecharge and storage, and aesthetic andrecreational values.

B. Determine hydrologic needs of wild stocks andwork to regain instream flow levelrecommendations.

C. Protect and maintain or enhance, and in somecases restore areas with high values andfunctions.

D. Follow the Mitigation Hierarchy to protectwetlands and other aquatic habitat: avoid

impacts, minimize impacts, rectify negativeimpacts, and compensate for impacts.

E. Condition land use activities as needed toprotect and provide wetland and riparian areafunctions and values.

F. Identify and study degraded river, smallstreams, riparian and wetland habitatconditions caused by natural and humanimpacts.

G. Develop a management plan to increase thevalues and functions of these ecosystems.

H. Explore management strategies for wetlands,riparian habitats and small streams.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR.8 Retain or restore structural and

functional characteristics of wetlandsand rivers.

***** ***** *****

R.8.1 Identify wetland, riparian and river habitat. ***** ***** ***** Cities, Counties, StateR.8.2 Determine hydrologic needs of wild stocks

and work to refine instream flowrecommendations.

***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, publicinterest, State.

R.8.3 Protect, maintain or enhance, or restoreareaswith high values and functions.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, publicinterest, State.

R8.4 Follow federal Mitigation Hierarchy ***** ***** Cities, Counties, PUDs,State

R.8.5 Condition land use activities to protectthese ecosystems.

***** ***** ***** Cities, Counties, State

R.8.6 Identify and study degraded aquaticecosystemscaused by natural and human impacts.


R.8.7 Develop a management plan to increase thefunctions and values of habitat and tomake better use of water resources.


R.8.8 Explore management strategies for aquaticecosystems.


The projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. As studies are undertaken, and changes made,some actions will need to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with other proposals found to be betteror more feasible.



Flood Plain Management R.9Protect and in some cases store flood plain and estuarine habitat to provide functions and values necessaryfor wild or hatchery fish and other wildlife and protection of life safety and property.

FURTHER:A. Discourage future development B. Implement flood and watershed management

in the floodplain. plans, and the DQ Plan.

ACTION CHARTPROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1999

/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 2QYEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR-9 Protect and in some cases restore flood

plain and estuarine habitat functions andvalues.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding State. Tribes,Cities, Counties, PUDs,public interest.

R.9.1 Discourage development in the flood lain. ***** ***** ***** State, Cities, CountiesR.9.2 East CI. County-continue to implement water-

shed and D plans.***** ***** County, Tribe, State, Cities

R.9.3 E. Jeff. County-continue to implement water-shed plans-, link to Co. Comp. Plan, FEMAT,DQ

***** State, Cities, Counties




Forest Practices R.10Evaluate the cumulative impacts of forest practices to short- and long-term regional hydrology.

FURTHER:A. Coordinate watershed analyses with all

agencies.B. Analyze the watershed on an ecosystem-based

scale, addressing the goals of the DQ planningarea as a high priority.

C. Include in watershed analysis the historicalconditions of the watershed.

D. Use the Port Townsend-Forest Servicecooperative watershed management agreementas a model in other watersheds in the region.


/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR.10 Evaluate cumulative impacts of forest

practices.***** ***** ***** Watershed Council

including Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest andState.

R.10.1 Coordinate watershed analyses. ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest.

R.10.2 Base analyses on ecosystem-based goals. ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PM, public interest.

R.10.3 Include historical conditions in watershedanalyses.

***** ***** Watershed CouncilincludingCities, Counties, PUDs,publicinterest.

R.10.4 Use the Port Townsend-Forest Serviceagreement as a model in other watersheds.

***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest.

The projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. As studies are undertaken, and changes made, someactions will need to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with other proposals found to be better or more feasible.



Fish Management R.11Restore, protect and enhance fish stocks including critical, high-potential-of-becoming/being critical anddepressed stocks of salmonids.

FURTHER:A. Protect and restore salmonid habitat. B. Implement the approach to management of

wild and hatchery fish and fish managementin 8.11.2.


/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONS

R.11 Restore and protect and enhance fishstocks in the regions rivers and streams.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Council includingUSFWS, WDFW, Cities,Counties, PUDs, publicinterest

R.11.1 Protect and in some cases restore salmonidhabitat to provide functions and valuesnecessary for wild and hatch fish.

***** ***** Watershed Council includingUSFWS, WDFW, Cities,Counties, PUDs, publicinterest

R.11.2 Implement the recommendations in 8.11.2in the management of wild and hatcheryfish.

***** ***** Watershed Council,including USFWS, WDFW,Cities, Counties, PUDs,public interest.

The projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. AS studies are undertaken, and changesmade, some actions will need to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with other proposals found to be betteror more feasible.

Wildlife Management R.12Protect wildlife as an important component of the bioregional ecosystem.

FURTHER:A. Encourage and support WDFW in its mandate B. Establish wildlife habitat areas and maintain

to provide ample protection for wildlife. intact greenspace corridors.C. Support the Public Benefit Rating System.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR.12 Protect wildlife as an important

component or the bioregional ecosystem.***** ***** ***** Watershed Council

including Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest andState.

R.12.1 Encourage and support WDFW protectionof wildlife.

***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, publicinterest.

R.12.2 Support efforts to establish wildlife habitatareasand intact greenspace corridors.


R.12.3 Support the Public Benefit Rating System. ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest.

The projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. As studies are undertaken, and changes made, some actions willneed to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with other proposals found to be better or more feasible.



Recreation R.13Support recreation as a water-related or dependent beneficial use. Any consumption forrecreation must share in any sacrifice strategy in times of low-flows.

FURTHER:A. Designate the Dungeness/Greywolf Rivers down

to the Forest Service boundary as a Wild andScenic River.

B. Provide access to the lower Dungeness Riverand the lower Big Quilcene River on clearlydesignated lands.

C. Support projects such as and including theRailroad Bridge Park and the RainshadowNatural Science Foundation's proposedinterpretive center as examples of opportunitiesproviding the public access to the river andeducation on the river.

D. Find funding to take advantage of opportunitiesfor public access to rivers, streams and lakesand involve the public in hearings on publicaccess.

E. Develop riverside management plans toimprove the habitat and natural appearance ofthe river banks below the Wild and Scenicboundary on the Dungeness and on the BigQuilcene and other rivers in the region.

F. Develop an educational program to encourageresponsible use of rivers and other sources ofrecreation.


/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR.I3 Support recreation as a water-related or

dependent beneficial use. Any consumptionfor recreation must share in any sacrificestrafe in times of low-flows.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest andState.

R.13.1 Designate the Dungeness/Greywolf Riversdown to the Forest Service boundary as aWild and Scenic River.


R.13.2 Provide access to the lower DungenessRiver and the lower Big Quilcene River onclearly designated lands.


R.13.3 Support river interpretive and educationprojects as examples of opportunitiesproviding public access to the river andeducation on the river.


R.13.4 Find funding to take advantage ofopportunitiesfor public access to rivers streams and lakesand involve the public in hearings on publicaccess.

Watershed CouncilincludingCities, Counties, PUDs,publicinterest.

R.13.5 Develop riverside management plans toimprove the habitat and natural appearanceof the river banks below the Wild andScenic boundary on the Dungeness and onthe Big Quilcene and other rivers in theregion.

Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest.

8.13.6 Develop an educational program toencourage responsible use of rivers andother sources of recreation.

Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest.




Hydrologic Research and Data Management R.14Pursue hydrologic research and use local data management systems critical to future stewardship,allocation and management of water resources in the region.

FURTHER:A. Determine the water resources information

needed for long term decision making.B. Build finding for technical investigations into the rate

structure of all large regional water purveyors.

C. Include water quality and quantity datamanagement's an essential component for on-going water management and land useplanning efforts.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSR.14 Pursue hydrogeologic research as a critical

component to the future stewardship,allocation and management of the waterresources of the region.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding Cities, Counties,PUDs, public interest andState.

R.14.1 Complete a study to determine the waterresources information needed for long termdecision making.


R.14.2 C. Include water quality and quantity datamanagement as an essential component foron-going water management and land useplanning efforts.


R 14.3 Build funding for technical investigationsinto the rate structure of all large regionalwater purveyors.





Clallam County Recommendations (C.)Irrigation Water Management CA - C.4Improve the efficiency of the Sequim-Dungeness Irrigation system through conservationmeasures and better management procedures. Refer to Chapter 6, Figure 6.4 for informationon Management Strategies for Conservation and Efficiency of Use being implemented by theDungeness River Agricultural Water Users Association.

FURTHER:A. Update water rights in the Dungeness River to C. Investigate off channel storage of water from

reflect actual and needed beneficial uses by irrigation diversions.human and natural systems. D. If agricultural lands are converted, the

B. Improve the management of the Dungeness conversion should be carefully panned to avoidirrigation systems. negative impacts on the river ecosystem.

ACTION CHART# PROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1994

/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.1 Update water rights in the Dungeness River *****C.1.1 Inventory amt. water needed to service adjudi-

cated uses and potential need in future.***** Water Users Association

C.1.2 Determine "paper rights" and eliminate. EcologyC.1.3 Determine amt, that can be saved for transfer

to instream flow and implement.***** Ecology and Water Users

C.1.4 Provide on-going mechanisms to eliminatedisincentives to conservation, and allow trans-fer of saved water to instream flow needs.

***** Ecology/Water Users

C.2 Continue improvement of the manage-ment of Dungeness irrigation s stems.

in process *****

C.2.1 Improve water management/conservation toprovide no less than 50°fo of instantaneousflow from 8/1 to end of irrigation season toremain instream.

***** ***** Agreement between WaterUsers and Tribe

C.2.2 Restructure districts and companies formore efficiency.

***** . Water Users Help withfunding

C.23 Explore revisions to irrigation schedule. ***** ***** Water UsersC.2.4 Water Users continue funding water use coor-

dinator to record water use/efficient measures.***** ***** ***** Water Users

C.2.5 Assess impacts of reduced irrigation on smallstreams, wells, groundwater.

***** ***** County, Ecology, Tribe

C.3 Investigate the possibilities for off channelstorage of water from irrigation diversions.

*****

C.3.1 Study the benefits to river systems ofoff-channel storage.

***** ***** Water Users

C.4 If lands are converted, carefully plan theconversion to improve the availability ofwater for instream flow and avoid nega-tive impacts on river ecosystem.

*****

C.4.1 Re-evaluate land uses to provide efficientwater use in conversion of ag. lands.

***** ***** County

* If the Dungeness River Agricultural Water Users Association decides to develop a conservation plan, costs areestimated to be between $50 -100,000. The projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. As studiesare undertaken, and changes made, some actions will need to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with otherproposals found to be better or more feasible.



Research and Data Management C.5Complete a comprehensive water resources study to determine the quantity and quality of bothsurface and ground water in east Clallam County.

FURTHER:A. Pursue hydrogeologic research as a critical component to the future stewardship, allocation and management of water

resources in the region.

ACTION CHART# PROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1994

/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.5 Complete hydrogeologic research to de-

termine the quantity and quality ofsurface and ground water in east Clallam.Based on the USGS Workplan, a 5-year studyis proposed. USGS cost-shares 50% of thetotal costs.

***** ***** Watershed Council: County,City of Sequim, PUD, Ecology,public interests.

TOTAL COST:$1,081,146

LOCAL COST:$540,574or approx.$110,000/ .




Instream Flows C.6Protect, supplement and improve in the future, instream flows, to provide minimum flows needed forstocks of salmonids and other species in the area's rivers and streams.

FURTHER:A. Set instream flows by rule for the Dungeness

River.B. Issue no surface water permits for the small

streams in eastern Clallam County, untiloptimum instream flow recommendationsbased on improved biological criteria aredeveloped.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXT020YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.6 Protect, supplement and improve instream flows. ***** ***** *****C.6.1 Set instream flows based on IFIM on the

Dungeness River***** Ecology

C.6.2 Issue no new surface water permits on smallrivers and streams in east Clallam County.

***** ***** Ecology

C.6.2.1 Manage off stream water consumption and landuse

***** ***** ***** Water UsersCounty

C.6.2.2 On flows partially from a diversions, mimicnature.

***** ***** ***** Water UsersCounty

C.6.2.3 Maintain existing return flow methods, except forroved efficiencies.

***** ***** Water Users incoop. withCounty/Tribe

C.6.2.4 Water Users not responsible for furnishingirrigation waters outside adjudicated uses.

***** ***** ***** Water Users




Habitat Restoration and Enhancement C.7Develop and implement a habitat management plan to maximize the biologicalproductivity from the available resources.

FURTHER:A. Establish a watershed management council (Watershed Council) and ad hoc habitat work group to achieveon-going continuity of regional habitat management, and to coordinate and guide research efforts.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.7 Develop a habitat management plan, and

achieve on-going continuity of regionalhabitat management and coordination ofresearch efforts.

***** **** County, Tribe, City,PUD

C.7.1 Establish a Watershed Council and HabitatWork Group.

***** ***** County, Tribe

C.7.2 Evaluate the future impacts of forestpractices to long and short term regionalhydrology.

***** ***** Watershed Council,County, includingUSFS, OlympicNational Park

C.7.3 Develop a comprehensive approach to bankstabilization.

***** ***** Watershed Council,including the County,and Tribe




Fish Management C.8Manage fish stocks to protect and rebuild stocks while protecting instream flows andimplementing habitat improvement projects.

FURTHER:A. Implement the regional recommendations on

wildlife.B. Analyze present hatchery and harvest

management practices.C. Protect critical, high-potential-of

becoming/being critical, and depressed stocks.D. Determine the status of SASSI stocks occurring

primarily in the Dungeness or eastern Strait ofJuan de Fuca currently listed as unknown, and

implement appropriate measures for theirconservation.

E. Initiate the use of artificial propagation forstocks in jeopardy of extinction.

F. Analyze the use of the Dungeness and HurdCreek hatcheries to determine the productionlimitations on hatchery stocks, and to assessthe impact of hatchery practices on wildstocks.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.8 Manage fish to protect and rebuild

stocks while protecting Instream flowsand improving habitat.

C.8.1 Implement regional fish recommendations. ***** ***** ***** Watershed CouncilC.8.2 Analyze present hatchery and harvest

management practices.***** ***** Watershed Council,

including WDFW,Tribe, County

C.8.2.1 Protect critical, high-potential-of-becoming/ being-critical, and depressedstocks, and set target schedules forattainment geared to the health andnumbers of those wild fish.

***** ***** Watershed Council,including WDFW,Tribe, County

C.8.2.2 Determine the status of SASSI stockscurrently unknown.

***** ***** WDFW, Tribe,County

C.8.2.3 Initiate or continue the use of artificialpropagation of stocks in jeopardy ofextinction.

***** ***** W DFW, Tribe,County

C.8.3.4 Analyze the use of the Dungeness andHurd Creek hatcheries.

***** ***** Watershed Council,including WDFW,Tribe, County




Wildlife Management C.9Protect wildlife as an important component of the ecosystem on the local and state level.

FURTHER:A. Implement the regional recommendations on B. Establish wildlife habitat areas and maintain

wildlife. intact greenspace corridors to allow protectionof habitats and ecosystems and provide humanamenities.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.9 Provide wildlife protection.C.9.1 Implement regional wildlife

recommendations.***** ***** ***** Watershed

Council,including theCounty, City,State, and Tribe

C.92 Establish wildlife habitat areas andmaintain intact greenspaces.

***** ***** ***** WatershedCouncil,including theCounty, City,State, and Tribe




Wetlands and Rivers C.10Protect and enhance the important hydrologic functions of rivers and wetlands, as a part oflong-term habitat management of the region.

FURTHER:

A. Identify wetlands according to their importance forhabitat, wildlife species diversity, hydrologic rechargeand storage, and aesthetic and recreational humanvalues.

B. In implementing changes to the irrigationsystems, attempt to restore a more-naturaldrainage system.


/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.10 Protect the hydrologic functions of rivers

and wetlands.***** ***** *****

C.10.1 Identify wetlands according to theirimportance for habitat, wildlife diversity,hydrologic recharge. storage, aesthetic andrecreational values.

***** ***** Watershed Council, HabitatWork Group, including theCounty, City, State, andTribe, public interests.

C.10.2 A. Attempt to restore a more natural drainagesystem in changes to the irrigation system.

***** ***** Water Users, County, City,State, Tribe

C.10.2 B. When planning for and implementingchanges to irrigation system, consider theimpacts on nearby wetlands.

***** ***** Water Users, County

Implement Regional Recommendations onWetlands.

C.10.3 ****• ***** ***** Watershed Council, HabitatWork Group, including theCounty, City, State, andTribe, public interests

C.10.4 Pursue the rehabilitation of small streams. ***** ***** ***** Watershed Council, HabitatWork Group, including theCounty, City, State, andTribe, public interests

C.10.5 Study small streams and tributaries todeterminewhat needs exist.

***** ***** Watershed Council, HabitatWork Group, including theCounty, City, State, andTribe, public interests




Ground Water C.11To protect ground-water resources, investigate the quantity and quality of ground waterin east Clallam County.

FURTHER:A. Investigate the relationship between the

Dungeness River and recharge. Conduct acomprehensive ground-water resources study.

B. Develop an interim strategy to determine how toprotect ground water for the next five years.

C. Manage ground-water resources to insureprotection of water quality.

D. Enforce state standards for drilling and wellconstruction.

E. Develop a well-metering program, (notconsensus recommendation).

F. Develop a 5 year pilot metering study.G. Encourage community systems.H. Develop low-interest loans/potable water, in

areas needing them.I. Establish a long-term strategy after water

resources study is completed.J. Develop an education program for well-owners

on the proper use of well water.ACTION CHART# PROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1994

/1995NEXTFIVE

YEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.11 Determine the relationship between the

Dungeness River and recharge.C.11.1 Conduct a water resources study to analyze the

regional ground- and surface water resources.***** ***** Watershed Council:

including the County,City of Sequim, PUD,and Ecology

TOTAL COST:$1,081,146

LOCAL COST:$540,574or approx.$110,00or .

C.11.2 Develop an interim strategy to protectand water.

in process ***** County, Tribe, PUDEcology

C.11.3 Manage ground-water resources to insureprotection of water quality.

***** ***** County, City, PUD,State

C.11.4 Follow and enforce state standards forwell construction.

***** ***** County, City, State

C.11.5 Meter all new community wells & record uses. ***** ***** County, City, State,PUD

C.11.6 Establish a 5-ear well metering pilot study. ***** ***** CountC.11.7 Provide quicker, local review of permits. ***** ***** County in cooperation

with State.C.11.8 Develop low-interest loans or other

mechanisms to maintain or assure potable waterin areas of need.

***** ***** County, City, PUD,State

C.11.9 After water resources study, establish a long-teen strategy and program for protection ofground water.

***** Watershed Council:including the County,City of Sequins, PUD,and Ecology

C.11.10 Local purveyors should consider organizingunder PWSCA.

***** County, City, PUD

C.11.11 Develop an education program for well owners. ***** Watershed Council:including the County,City of Sequim, PUD,and Ecology

C.11.12 *****Consider the impacts of salt filters on groundwater.

County




City of Sequim C.12A long-term source of sufficient water should be determined for the City.

FURTHER:A. City should develop a long-term source of C. Prior to extension of service to additional areas,

water, and work to conserve water from the City should document availability of adequateDungeness River. water.

B. City should implement a conservation program D. Interties may be permitted if no negativeto more efficiently use available water, and to impacts are caused.reduce the higher-than-average per-citizenuse.


/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.12 Develop a long-term source of water for

the City.C.12.1 Develop a long-term source of water and

workto conserve water.

***** ***** Watershed Council,including the City,PUD, County & State

C.12.2 Implement a rigorous conservation o ***** ***** *****C.12.3 Document availability of adequate water

supplies prior to extension of services.***** ***** City

C.12.4 Demonstrate that any permitted intertieshave no negative impacts.

***** ***** City




Watershed Protect District C.13Further define a watershed protection district to provide funding for consistent staff support forwater quality and quantity protection and management and aquifer management, and to leveragefunding for grants for special projects.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXT020YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.13 Further define a type of protection district

to provide support for water quality andquantity and aquifer protection andmanagement.

***** Watershed Councilincluding County,City, PUD, Stateand Tribe, publicinterests


Regional Water Management System C. 14Develop and implement a comprehensive regional water management program for east ClallamCounty, including ground- and surface water quantity and quality, suppliers and use.

FURTHER:A. Manage public water supplies to encourage B. Develop programs for outdoor water conservation.

efficiency and meet health requirements. C. Consider water quantity and quality whenplanning and siting new developments and wastewaterfacilities.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.14 Develop and implement a comprehensive

regional water management program foreast Clallam County,

***** ***** *****

C.14.1 Manage public water supplies to encourageefficiency and meet health requirements.

***** ***** City, PUD, Countyand StateCity, PUD, CountyC.14.2 Develop programs for outdoor water

conservation.*****

and StateC.14.3 Consider water quantity and quality issues

in planning and siting new developmentand waste-water facilities.

***** ***** City, PUD, Countyand State




Public Education and Conservation Programs C. 15Pursue public education and conservation programs to provide a better understanding and use ofthe region's water resources.

FURTHER:A. Implement the DQ Regional Recommendations B. Continue and expand public education and

on Education. conservation programs, appropriate to eachsub-region.


/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.15 Public education and conservation should

take high priority in water resourcemanagement in east Clallam County,

***** ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding County,City, State, Tribe,PUD.

Implement the DQ Education Plan.C.15.1 ***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding CountyCity, State, Tribe,PUD.

C.15.2 Implement the DQ RegionalRecommendationson Education.

***** ***** Watershed Councilincluding County,City, State, Tribe,PUD.




County-Wide Water Management System C.17Clallam County should pursue participation in water resource management to review andmake recommendations on water rights applications, well drilling and water use, withEcology maintaining the final decisions on issuance of water rights. (Not a consensusrecommendation-in Unresolved Issues.)

FURTHER:A. A Memorandum of Understanding should be developed for a local water resources program to review and

make recommendations on water right applications, well drilling and water use.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

sixTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSC.13 Develop a local water resources

program to review and makerecommendations on water rightapplications, well drilling and water use.

***** ***** County incooperationwith State

One FTE pluscontinuation ofexisting waterquality staff.*

C.13.1 Program should include review, on-siteinvestigations, and recommendations toEcology on water rights.

***** ***** County/State


* The Community Development Director estimates that the following positions are needed toimplement this program, which includes participation in implementation of otherrecommendations related to water resources, water quality protection, water management andwatershed restoration:

1 FTE: lab/tech1 FTE: field/tech1 FTE: clerical1 FTE: planning/administration/management1/2 FTE: political/management

Given the existing staff, one new full-time employee, (FTE) is needed, approximately $50-40,000/year plus support. The existing positions will need to be maintained after those currentlyon grant-funding expires.



Jefferson County Recommendations (J.)Habitat J. 1Establish a watershed management council (Watershed Council) representative of all intereststo better manage the water resources in the County.

FURTHER:A. A Watershed Council should be established to experiences, and to avoid competition and

achieve on-going continuity of regional habitat duplication of efforts.management, and to coordinate and guide B. Representatives of each Council should meet asresearch efforts. It should coordinate with the needed to discuss regional issues or jointproposed East Clallam County Watershed actions.Council, to combine funding efforts, share C. Locally fund the Watershed Council with State

and grant-assistance.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSJ.1 Establish a Watershed Council ***** CWSP, including

County, City, PUD,Tribe, public interests

J.1.1 Coordinate with the proposed East ClallamCounty Watershed Council.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Council

J.1.2 Meet to discuss regional issues or jointactions.

***** ***** ***** Watershed Council

J.1.3 Funding for Watershed Council should comefromlocal resources, in cooperation with the Stateand possible grants resources.

***** ***** Watershed Council




Habitat -General J.2Protect habitat functions and values and species diversity to provide protection of thewater resources in the region. General Habitat recommendations are found in Chapter 5,Regional Recommendations and the Implementation chart in this Chapter.

Habitat and Gravel Traps J.3Channel Stabilization and Gravel Traps: Coordinate habitat management through theWatershed Council in conjunction with the FEMAT process and other State and Federalwatershed planning and assessment processes.

FURTHER:A. Monitor and analyze any cumulative effects of B. Evaluate the feasibility of dredging and other

past and future gravel extraction. alternatives considering the biological context.

ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSJ.3 Coordinate habitat management with

existing processes.***** ***** Watershed Council

J.3.1 Coordinate management through WatershedCouncil, FEMAT and other existing processes.

***** ***** Watershed Council

J.3.2 Monitor cumulative effects of gravel extraction. ***** ***** Watershed CouncilJ.3.3 Evaluate the feasibility of dredging and other

alternatives.***** ***** Watershed Council


Habitat Restoration J.4Enhance and restore habitat which has been destroyed or degraded, and protect areas notyet impacted.

FURTHER:A. Develop a pilot habitat restoration project on region. Seek joint funding and participationone stream as an example of what can and B. Analyze past restoration projects to understandshould be done on degraded streams in the their long-term, cumulative impacts, and to

aid in planning future projects..ACTION CHART


NEXTFIVEYEARS

SixTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONSJ.4 Enhance or restore habitat which has been

destroyed or degraded, and protect un-impacted areas.

***** ***** Watershed Council: CWSP,including County, City,PUD, Tribe, publicinterests.

J.4.1 Develop a pilot restoration project. ***** ***** Watershed CouncilJ.4.2 j Analyze past habitat restoration projects. ***** ***** Watershed Council




Rivers and Instream Flows J.5Protect, supplement and improve in the future as possible instream flows to provideflows needed for salmonids and other species in the area's rivers.

FURTHER:A. Do not issue any new surface water rights or permits

for rivers and streams in eastern Jefferson Countyexcept the Big Quilcene River, until instream flowsare adopted by rule.

B. Establish instream flows for recommendation to theState for adoption by rule, for all streams in easternJefferson County.

C. Improve instream flow conditions throughnegotiations between major water users and waterrights holders on the Big Quilcene.

D. Adopt by rule instream flow recommendationson streams and rivers except the Big Quilcene,after numbers are established based onimproved biological criteria.

E. Pursue cooperative agreements for instreamflow programs on other streams in easternJefferson County (similar to that on the BigQuilcene).

F. Protect and provide more water for instreamflows.

G. Protect the quality of surface and ground water.


/1995NEXTFIVEYEARS

SIXTO 20YEARS


COST

PROJECTS and ACTIONS

J.5 Protect, supplement and improve instreamflow conditions.

***** ***** Watershed Council:CWSP, includingCounty, City, PUD,Tribe, public interests

J.5.1 Issue no new surface water rights untilinstream

***** ***** Ecology

flows are adopted b rule.J.5.2 Establish instream flows for

recommendation***** ***** Watershed Council.

for adoption by rule. If this has not beenaccomplished in 3years,Ecology should adoptinstream flows b rule.

J.5.3 Improve instream flow conditions on the Big inprocess

***** City, County, State, _

Quilcene River by continuing negotiations Tribe, in cooperationbetween major water users. with Watershed

Council.15.4 Adopt instream flows recommended on

small***** ***** Ecology in

cooperationstreams, after numbers are established by with Watershed

Council.improved biological criteria.

J.5.5 Pursue cooperative agreements on smallstreams

***** Watershed Council,

similar to one on Big Quilcene. EcologyJ.5.6 Protect and provide more water for instream ***** ***** Watershed Council,

flow. EcologyJ.5.7 Protect water quality. ***** ***** Watershed Council

Ecology, PSWQAThe projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. As studies are undertaken, and changesmade, some actions will need to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with other proposals found to be betteror more feasible.



Wildlife Management and Forest Practices J.6General recommendations for this area of concern are found in Chapter 5, RegionalRecommendations and the Implementation chart in this Chapter.

Fish Management J.7Protect critical, high potential of becoming/being critical and depressed stocks of salmonids andother fish in the rivers in the region. General recommendations for this area of concern are foundin Chapter 5, Regional Recommendations and the Implementation chart in this Chapter.

FURTHER:A. Analyze hatchery impacts and cumulative effects of hatchery operations on wild fish stocks. Manage to protect

and provide for wild salmonids and other fish species.

ACTION CHARTNEXT SIX POSSIBLE COST

PROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1994 FIVE TO 20 IMPLEMENTING/1995 YEARS YEARS AGENCY

PROJECTS and ACTIONSJ.7 Protect wild and other fish stocks in the

region's rivers.***** ***** ***** Watershed Council, in

cooperation with USFWS,WDFW

J.7.1 Analyze hatchery impacts. ***** ***** Watershed Council incooperation with USFWS,WDFW.


Flood Management J.8Protect and restore flood plain and estuarine habitat.

FURTHER:A. As can be accomplished, remove development already in the flood plain.B. Establish a fund to purchase flood plain properties and residences as they become available.

ACTION CHART

# NEXT SIX POSSIBLE COSTPROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1994 FIVE TO 20 IMPLEMENTING

/1995 YEARS YEARS AGENCYPROJECTS and ACTIONS

J.8 Protect and restore flood plain andestuarine habitat.

***** ***** ***** Local Govt., WatershedCouncil, in cooperationwith USFWS, WDFW

J.8.1 Remove development in flood lain. ***** ***** ***** Local Govt., StateJ.8.2 Establish a fund to purchase flood plain ***** ***** Local Govt., State, land

properties as become available. trustsThe projects, programs and regulations listed are a starting place. As studies are undertaken, and changes made,some actions will need to be amended, in or some cases, replaced with other proposals found to be better or morefeasible.

Hydrologic Research and Data Management J.9General recommendations for this area of concern are found in Chapter 5, RegionalRecommendations and the Implementation chart in this Chapter.



Ground Water J.10 - J.11Maintain both the quality and quantity of ground water, through policies and protection ofhydrologic base flows and existing water rights which provide for reasonable maintenance of thenatural water resources.

FURTHER:A. To protect ground-water recharge, consider B. Ground Water Management: Protect ground

and implement the principles, and policies using the water from pollution and over-allocation,Implementation Tools in J.9.6. using the recommendations in J.10.1.



PROJECTS and ACTIONSJ.10 Protect and preserve ground water ***** ***** Watershed Council,

recharge. CWSP, especially,County, City, PUD.

J.10.1 Consider the principles in J.I0.1. ***** ***** Watershed Council,especially County,City, and PUD

J.10.2 Consider the purposes of the policies inJ.10.2.

***** ***** Watershed Council,especially County,City, and PUD

J.I0.3 Implement the policies in J. 10.3. ***** ***** Watershed Council,especially County,City, and PUB.

***** ***** County, City, PUDJ.10.4 Address policies to protect ground-waterquality and adequate recharge in all landand water management lens, programs, andregulations.

J.10.5 Provide for the "Needs" in 3.10.5. ***** ***** County , City, PUDJ.10.6 Consider the implementation tools in J.I0.6. ***** ***** County, City, PUD.J.11 Protect ground water in the region. ***** *****J.11.1.1 ***** ***** EcologyDevelop standards for wells to assure there

will be no detrimental impact to instreamflow, seawater intrusion or affect existinguses.

J.I 1.1.2 ***** Ecology, LegislatureEstablish legislation to require permits forall new wells.

J.11.1.3 Require permits for all future new wells. EcologyJ.11.1.4 Log drillers reports locally and enter in ***** *****

data bases.Watershed Council,including County,City, PUD, HealthDept., Ecology

J.I L L5 ***** ***** ***** City, County, State.Protect aquifer recharge areas in future landuse actions.

J.11.1.6 ***** *****Develop incentives to encouragecommunity systems; meter communitysystem.

Ecology, DOH, City,County, PUD

J.11.1.7 Complete a comprehensive ground-water ***** ***** Watershed Council inresources study. cooperation with

StateJ.11.1.8 Design land use patterns to encourage and ***** ***** City' County, State

influence the development of communitywell systems.




Water Rights J.12Determine the amount of surface water that can be saved for transfer to instream flows andimplement the changes when appropriate.

FURTHER:A. Redefine "beneficial uses" to allow for return of unused water to augment instream flow, with no losses of water

rights.

ACTION CHART

NEXT SIX POSSIBLE COSTPROPOSALS FOR ACTION 1994 FIVE TO 20 IMPLEMENTING

/1995 YEARS YEARS AGENCYPROJECTS and ACTIONS

J.12 Determine amount of surface water rights canbe saved for transfer to instream flows,and implement change

***** ***** Ecology in cooperationwith WatershedCouncil

J.12.1 Redefine beneficial uses to allow for return ofunused water to augment instream flow, withno loss of water rights.

***** ***** Ecology


Storage J.13Consider storage and surface water run-off, especially in areas where no surface or groundwateravailability exists.

FURTHER:A. Complete a cost analysis of storage options.B. Conduct a complete environmental analysis of

preliminary storage options and sites.C. Identify "mini" storage systems or practices.D. Restore natural sponge capacity of wetlands and

other vegetated areas. Complete study ofeffectiveness of incentives for properly owners

for restoring natural sponge capacity of their land;consider BMP's inPSWQA manual to provide storage and ground-waterrecharge.The projects, programs and regulations listed are astarting place. As studies are undertaken, and changesmade, some actions will need to be amended, in orsome cases, replaced with other proposals found to bebetter or more feasible.

ACTION CHART# NEXT SIX POSSIBLE COST


PROJECTS and ACTIONSJ.13 Consider storage and surface water runoff ***** ***** CWSP, including

County, City, PUDJ.13.1 Complete a cost analysis of storage options ***** ***** CWSP, including

County, City, PUDJ.13.2 ***** ***** CWSP, includingConduct a complete environmental analysis

of storage options and sites. County, City, PUDJ.13.3 ***** ****** CWSP, includingIdentify "mini" storage systems or

practices. County, City, PUDJ113.4 ***** *****Restore natural sponge capacity in wetlands

and other vegetated areas.Watershed Councilwith CWSP, includingCounty, City, PUD




Conservation J.14Implement practices to provide conservation and better water efficiency. Generalrecommendations for conservation are found in Chapter 5, Regional Recommendations and theimplementation chart in the Chapter.

FURTHER:A. Establish and continue water conservation

strategies and the Port Townsend Paper NMI.B. Continue conservation strategies and establish

water usage goals in Port Townsend and the PUD.C. Establish conservation strategies and water usage

goals through sub-division regulations and land usepolicies.

D. Require water conservation measures and devices toprovide the most efficient use of water resources.Promote conservation retrofit measures on alreadybuilt homes.

E. Eliminate disincentives to conserve agricultural waterand allow on-going, orderly transfer of saved water toinstream flows.



PROJECTS and ACTIONSJ.14 Implement practices to provide ***** ***** CWSP, including

conservation and better water efficiency. County, City, PUD,Watershed Council

J.14.1 ***** Port Townsend PaperEstablish and continue conservationstrategies and establish water usage goals. Company

J.14.2 Continue conservation strategies and ***** ***** City and PUDestablish water usage goals.

J.14.3 ***** ***** Jefferson CountyEstablish conservation strategies and waterusage goals through sub-division regulationand land use policies.

J.14.4 Require all new development in City andCounty to use conservation measures anddevices to provide the most efficient use ofwater. Promote conservation retrofit onexisting structures.

***** ***** City and County,PUD

J.14.5 ***** ***** Watershed Council incooperation with

Eliminate disincentives to conservation andallow on-going, orderly transfer of savedwater to instream flows. Ecology/Legislature




Figure 8.1 Suggested Strategy for Implementation for Jefferson County

Volume 1

Chapter 9

Technical Support

Technical Support 9.1

Chapter 9Technical Support

Chapter OverviewSound decisions for water resources planning must be based on the best available information.Technical support in the form of staff, equipment, and data was an important aspect of the DQProject and will be increasingly important to ongoing implementation of the DQ WaterManagement Plan. This Chapter describes DQ Project in-house data management and GISefforts to date, and strategies and recommendations for future data integration including researchprojects recommended by the Regional Planning Group (RPG).

For more description on Technical Committee activities, see Chapter 14: RPG Committees. Formore detailed description of existing information and the DQ Project library see Chapter 4:Information Resources and Habitat Projects.

In-House Data Management

Purpose

Data Management efforts were begun for DQ Project in March of 1993 to consolidate data fromavailable sources, manage the data for the unique purposes of the DQ Project, and provide staffsupport for Technical Committee and RPG meetings and research. Linn Clark, DataManagement Staff working at the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe were able to pull together datafrom agencies that normally do not have reason to share data.

Summary of Existing Digital Data

Most of the GIS data used for the DQ Project came from other agencies. GIS data was collectedfrom Clallam County Department of Community Development, the Puget Sound River BasinTeam,


9.2 Technical Support

Jefferson County Integrated Data Management System, U.S. Forest Service Quilcene RangerDistrict, Olympic National Park, and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Natural ResourcesProgram. Other computer data was provided by U.S. Geological Survey.

Ecology provided coverages for the entire area including streams, DQ Project boundaries, andcounty lines. The River Basin Team provided more in-depth data for the Dungeness Riverwatershed which was particularly useful when studying the Sequim Prairie area. These coveragesranged from roads and streams to land use and updated wetlands information. Many of thecoverages are for only a portion of the DQ area, such as data from the Quilcene Ranger District,Clallam, and Jefferson Counties. Staff updated the irrigation ditch data and created populationareas coverage. Other coverages acquired for the project included USGS digital elevation modeldata (DEM) for the entire DQ area, which was used for many of the figures in Chapter 3.

Most of the GIS data used in this area originates from a few sources,and has already been used by a number of different groups which often __change or update the data along the way. Very little or nodocumentation exists for any of the digital data.

On-going RPG Technical SupportOne of the main functions of the data management position was to provide support to the DQprocess. This support included creating graphs and charts from spreadsheet data, providing maps,and providing interactive data analysis with work groups.

Data Management staff used Arcview software to present interactive GIS data; produced contourmaps using USGS DEM data and PC/Tin; produced overhead slides of wetlands, ditches, androads for a talk on irrigation conservation measures and the possible impacts on wetlands; andproduced a variety of maps using data from a nitrate study to analyze a possible link betweenwell depth or location and nitrate levels in areas of concern.

Data Management Equipment and SoftwareIn order to begin long-term water resources data management for the DQ Project area, thefollowing equipment and software was purchased



and installed at the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Administration Building:

Equipment: Gateway 486-66 PCHP DraftPro pen plotterSummagrid III digitizerToshiba T4400C laptop computerIn Focus LCD Projection panel

Software: PC ARC/INFO (GIS)PC/TIN (elevation modeling)WORD (word processing)ACCESS (database)EXCEL (spreadsheet)

DQ Participation in DMTF ProjectsThe Data Management Task Force (DMTF) was created by the State Legislature to plan forcompatibility of data state-wide, including water resources information. DQ Project staff havebeen in contact with the DMTF since fall of 1992. The DMTF demonstrated to the DQ TechnicalCommittee the use of Arcview GIS on water resources information in December 1992, beforeDQ Project GIS equipment was purchased. DQ Project has participated in the following DMTFprojects:

1. Water Resources Studies Clearing House: DMTF created a structure using MS ACCESS fora PC database. After each participating agency contributed their information, the databasewould contain information about published or unpublished documents, papers, studies, or anyother material that relates to water resources. In May 1993 Data Management Staff inputselections from the DQ Project Water Resources Library to the DMTF data base andcritiqued the data base as requested.

2. Improved Water Allocation Data: This DMTF project was planned in two parts. The first partis a broad-brush analysis to identify which areas need detailed analysis. The second part is todo the detailed analysis of the areas identified. DQ Project staff



have not been contacted as of this date to complete work on this project.

3. Washington Surface Water Information System (WASWIS):DQ Data Management Staff volunteered to participate in this project as a BETA Test site.Apparently this project is delayed, and staff is still awaiting the data.

Strategies and Recommendations

BackgroundThe strategies and recommendations in this section come from both RPG recommendations andTechnical Committee discussions. Many of the projects and data management strategies wereproposed because of a perceived need for improved information and integration for futuredecision making.

Accessible, compatible, and comprehensive water resources data has become an increasinglyimportant part of long-term water management in the DQ Project area. This section includes theRPG "wish list" for future research and data collection, strategies for coordination betweenagencies and organizations active in this area, and specific ideas improving existing data. Theselists have been compiled by staff, based on RPG and Technical Committee recommendations andinput throughout the planning period.

T.1. Proposed Data and Research ProjectsMany new water resource data collection, management, and analysis projects have beenrecommended by the RPG as a critical component to the future stewardship, allocation,and management of water resources of the region. These projects offer additionalopportunities for further agency and government coordination. The purpose of thissection is to show the extent of work proposed by outlining possible future data andresearch development projects.



T.1.1 Comprehensive Water Resource StudyImmediate work has been recommended based on the work plan and priorities developedby the USGS in the Plan of Study for the Ground- and Surface- Water Resources, theDungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Planning Project. The result will beinformation about land use in an area with both complex geologic history and extremelylow rainfall conditions. The study should be updated every five years, documentingchanges in water conditions over time.

The following work for the study is proposed and considered to be the most importantand urgent by the USGS: T.1.1.1. Flow Data Collection: At least 10 years of stream flowdata collection (until 2003), continuously for the Dungeness River down stream of theirrigation diversions and the Big Quilcene River below the Port Townsend diversion, andmonthly on Upper and Lower Chimacum, Tarboo, Thorndyke, Shine, Ludlow, ChevyChase, Donovan, Salmon Creeks and on the Big Quilcene at U.S. 101.

The following work for the study is proposed and considered to be critical by USGS:

T.1.1.2. Aquifer Recharge Studies: Estimate ground- water recharge to theunconsolidated water-table aquifers in the lowland areas using movement usinglow-flow analysis, soil-moisture budgeting, and a tritium tracer technique.

T.1.1.3. Geohydrology Studies: Inventory wells, map geohydrologic units showingthicknesses and hydraulic continuity, measure and map water-levels in selectedwells.

T.1.1.4. Withdrawal Quantification: Locate and quantify surface- and ground-waterwithdrawals by collecting public water-use data including location and depth ofground-water withdrawals,



return flows, withdrawal rates, and prior-use categories on an ongoing basis.

The following work for the study is proposed by the USGS and it is considered that it willeventually be a critical element of study after the above studies have been undertaken:

T.1.1.5. Cross-Sectional Ground-Water Flow Modeling: Construct and calibrate cross-sectionalgroundwater flow models to determine recharge potential of uplands.

T.1.1.6. Regional Ground-Water Flow Modeling: Quantify various components ofground-water budget (vertical flow, discharge, horizontal flow) and assess the effectsof changes in withdrawals and/or recharge due to development.

Other work proposed by the USGS includes:

T.1.1.7. Water Quality Inventory: Limited sampling in areas where little or no ground- andsurface-water sampling has been completed, mainly the interior lowlands of easternJefferson County, to supplement current water quality sampling by Dept. of Ecology,Jefferson County, Clallam County, to be coordinated with the Puget LowlandsNAWQA study. Address water quality issues such as contamination.

T.1.1.8. Runoff-Simulation Modeling: Construct runoff models for two watersheds where fishhabitat is important and suburbanization is likely.

T.1.1.9. Precipitation Monitoring: High altitude precipitation data collection to improve isohyetmaps for the region.

In addition to work proposed by USGS, the RPG has identified the following specific researchefforts for the comprehensive water resource study:

T.1.1.10. Regional Stream Flow and Ground-Water Modeling: Develop models to determine



water resource potentials from the northeast Olympic region. Specifics include:a. Create an adaptive modeling system to predict and analyze stream flows in the BigQuilcene River.b. Investigate the potential ground- and surface-water interconnection (hydraulic

continuity) on the Dungeness River.c. Determine the best locations and depths for municipal and residential watersupplies. Consider exploratory wells to determine deep aquifer resources.d. Assist Clallam County and the City of Sequim investigate alternative ground-water

sources for future expansion. Avoid adding to instream flow shortages on theDungeness River or extraction of groundwater below safe, sustainable levels.

T.1.1.11. Water Budget: Develop a regional water budget.

T.1.1.12. Watershed Analysis: Analyze historical conditions of the watershed.

T.1.1.13. Water-Use Data Collection: Counties and Cities begin ongoing collection ofdata from metered developments.

T.1.1.14. Forest Hydrology Evaluate cumulative impacts from forest practices to shortand long-term regional hydrology.

T.1.1.12. Quality/ Quantity Relationships: Investigate quantity and quality relationshipssuch as flows and turbidity, temperature and dilution impacts, and otherecosystem functions.

In preparation for the comprehensive water resources study, the following is recommended bythe Clallam County Work Group of the RPG:

T.1.1.13. The County, State, City, Tribe, and utility personnel should meet with USGS tofurther define the data needed to answer the most critical water availabilityquestions.



T.1.1.14. Pursue grant funds to administer the project.T.1.1.15. Build funding for technical analysis and data management into the rate structure

of local governments and water purveyors.T.1.1.16. Investigate setting aside a portion of the water right permit fees for future water

resource investigations and management within the area of application.

T.1.2. Dungeness River Irrigation StudiesThe Regional Planning Group has recommended studies to improve water management ofthe Dungeness irrigation system. These include:

T.1.2.1. Ditch Flow Monitoring: Based on the -recommendations of the MontgomeryWater Group report, installation of measuring weirs and meters on the ditchsystem, data collection, and a water budget for a conservation plan.

T.1.2.2. Water Withdrawals: Quantification and defined use of water withdrawals in theoff-season.

T.1.2.3. Ground-water Assessments: A ground-water resource assessment focusing onfeasibility of supplying a portion of the irrigation demand with ground water.Also, a ditch-specific groundwater assessment prior to implementingconservation measures.

T.1.2.4. Ground-water monitoring: Shallow-well water-level monitoring to assessimpacts from irrigation conservation measures. Monitoring will includedomestic wells and monitoring wells in wetlands.

T.1.2.5. Impact Assessment: An assessment of impacts of reduced irrigation on smallstreams, wells, and ground water. Includes installation of gages on small streamthat may be affected by conservation measures.



T.1.3. River Habitat StudiesT.1.3.1. Gravel Trap Information: Collection of information by-county from gravel trap

monitoring, including map of existing projects, hydraulic permit documents,and recording of use of gravel traps by juvenile and adult fish.

T.1.3.2. Gravel Studies: Gravel aggradation and stream stability analysis for theDungeness and Big Quilcene Rivers, including cumulative effects of past andfuture gravel extraction.

T.1.3.3. Stream Assessments: Habitat assessments by stream to update the optimum fishflow needs and to determine other habitat needs.

T.1.3.4. Habitat Identification: Development of a Strategic Wetland Information Systemfor Jefferson County for identification of wetland, riparian, river, and streamhabitat according to importance for habitat, wildlife, fisheries, recharge, floodstorage, and aesthetic and recreational values.

T.1.3.5. Restoration Analysis: Analysis of past habitat restoration projects includingthose considered "unsuccessful."

T.1.4. Well Data Development

T.1.4.1. Well Log Overview Data Base Maintenance: Update the well log overview database established for the DQ Project area on an ongoing basis.

T.1.4.2. Well Log Lithology Data Base Development: Develop a data base including thebest available lithology information (soils, rock removed during drilling) fromexisting well logs. Best available information includes: 1) complete geographicinformation, 2) deep wells, 3) thorough lithology information. Use the lithologydata base in aquifer analysis studies. .

T.1.4.3. Well Data GIS: Develop GIS layers from existing well log data,accuracy-checked if



possible. In Clallam County, update USGS well GIS to include all wells. Mapaquifers, and perform spatial analysis with well data.

T.1.4.4. Well Data Expansion: Update, expand data, and check data for accuracy forwell log entries through routine and specific site visits and data baseintegration. Include other data such as location and elevation (using GlobalPositioning System technology if possible), address, county parcel number,Ecology unique well I.D. number, and water quality data.

The well data projects are further described in T.4: Well Data Management Strategies,this Chapter.

T.2 Coordination StrategiesInformation and data collection and management by all agencies active in the DQ Projectarea should be coordinated to encourage effective and appropriate information management.There are many jurisdictions with complex and related data collection efforts ongoing in theDQ Project area, including Jefferson and Clallam Counties and Public Utility Districts, theCities of Port Townsend and Sequim, State and Federal agencies, Tribes, and otherorganizations involved in research activities. An effort should be made by agencies andorganizations involved in the DQ Project to develop a loose forum for keeping othersinformed about current and planned data management efforts. This forum should includeFederal, State, Tribal, local governments and agencies, educational, and other interestedorganizations. Structure and extent of coordination should be decided on by the participantsin the forum. Ongoing, active participation in discussions and participation in theimplementation of strategies is needed by participants to make such an effort successful.

T.2.1. Goals of the Research and Data Management "Forum"The mission of the forum will be discussion on regional data issues and to encourageagency and government coordination in data collection, management, and analysis. Thefollowing objectives outline the mission:



T.2.1.1. Integration: To facilitate data compatibility and integration of data betweenagencies and governments at the local, State, Federal, and Tribal level, relatedto water resources on the N.E. Olympic Peninsula. To develop solutions forobstacles to data integration.

T.2.1.2. Coordination: To avoid duplication of efforts; to enhance and coordinateregional awareness of current and planned data management efforts.

T.2.1.3. Data Standards: To develop water resource data standards to enhance dataintegrity and facilitate data integration.

T.2.1.4. Data Sharing: To develop regional guidelines for data sharing issues such asMOU's, cost sharing, and rights and responsibilities of data users anddevelopers.

T.2.1.5. Data Gaps: To identify and address gaps in data collection and management.T.2.1.6. Funding Partnerships: To establish interlocal partnerships to fund studies.T.2.1.7. Other Discussions: To continue technical discussions and inventory work begun

by DQ Project participants.

T.2.2. Standards and CommunicationData will likely become increasingly compatible as technology develops in the future. Inthe interim, however, communication between data managers should be increased andstandards should be developed to facilitate data exchanges for the foreseeable future.Data standards to be developed may include:1) Development of documentation format for data dictionaries;2) Development of a regional base map or mapping standards to facilitate

compatibility, of GIS data;3) Designation of watershed and political planning units;4) Development of water quality data formats;



5) Development of standard stream and water data formats including stream type mapsand classification systems;6) Development of data reporting requirements for well logs and construction

information;7) Development of water use reporting formats;8) Development of wetland data formats;9) Development of other data standards as appropriate.

T.2.3. Potential Initial Coordination ProjectThe comprehensive water resources study recommended for immediate implementationwill provide an opportunity to begin work on regional data coordination goals. Datacollected related to the water resources study should be organized with the goal of settingthe standards for future water resources information in the DQ Project area, and ensuringthe data is usable by as many interested parties as possible. The data coordination forum,including at least the agencies interested in the results of the water resources study,should begin discussions prior to the start of the study in order to reach agreement on anappropriate data structure and format for the study.

T.2.4. GIS /Data ManagementEstablish and maintain a coordinated data management system with GIS capability.Continuously update the GIS/data management system.

Coordination between area organizations should include a users group to developstandards specific to GIS. In the short term, Federal Province planning under thePresident's Forest Plan should be pursued as a process for beginning a N.E. OlympicPeninsula GIS users group.

T.3 Strategies for Data AccessInformation should be organized and managed to be available on a regional basis to allinterested parties: local governments, agencies, and interested groups or individuals. Inorder for data to be accessible, residents and professionals must first know what



information exists and then must be able to use that information in a way that isconvenient to both the data user and the data manager. The strategies for data accessdiscussed by Technical Committee and RPG members include both consolidation andnetworking as means to accomplish the goal of public access.

T.3.1. Local Information ConsolidationSeveral central locations for consolidation of interagency information should bedeveloped locally for specific focuses. Agencies should coordinate long-termmanagement of the information maintenance and should contribute appropriateinformation on local water data to consolidation points. Possible local consolidationpoints include:T.3.1.1. Water Resources Library: The DQ Project Water Resources Library should be

maintained as a long-term resource for regional public education and agencyuse. Agencies in the DQ Project area should supply copies of all new reportspertaining to water resources to the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe for the library.

T.3.1.2. County Data Management: Jefferson and Clallam Counties should developand/or maintain the following data bases: the well log overview data bases,water use data, stream flow data, water quality data, wetland data bases, ditchflow data, lithology data bases, G.I.S. well data layers.

T.3.1.3. River Activities Information: The local WDFW office should compile andmaintain the following: gravel trap design information including use by fish,maps of river gravel projects, gravel trap implementation information, data fromgravel extraction monitoring, hydraulic permit documents, County shorelinepermit documents, habitat inventory data and river ecology data.

Agencies may consider creating manuals describing available information and how toaccess specific



information as an alternative to the physical consolidation of records.

T.3.2. Data NetworkingThe Internet, local electronic library systems, and other computer networks shouldbe considered as means of establishing a non-centralized, non-hierarchicalintegrated data system. Direct access to area data bases, reference lists and locationsof data, and descriptions of how to access information should be made availablethroughout the N.E. Olympic Peninsula through a computer network.

T.4 Well Data Management StrategiesDQ Project discussions have shown the need to improve knowledge of complex geologyand aquifers. Extensive data on hydrogeology from well drilling has been collected on paperlogs since 1970. DQ Project funding helped to create a new data base of information on allwells logged in the DQ Project area. Participants and staff have discussed the manyundeveloped opportunities to link well data to other types of information, making existingdata much more valuable (see T.1.4: Well Data Development). Coordinated efforts tomaintain, update, and expand this data base as outlined in this section will create aninvaluable information resource for ongoing water studies and decision-making.

These discussions have indicated a need for a coordinated well log data managementprogram, requiring a broader vision of data collection by the Counties, Ecology, DOH, welldrillers, well owners, and data users in order to enhance valuable well information. Themanagement program would include the following components:

T.4.1. MaintenanceNew well logs should be updated into the well log data base by Clallam CountyWater Quality and Jefferson County Dept. of Environmental Health at least monthly.Missing well logs should be collected from Ecology and entered into the data base.



T.4.2. Data Base AccessThe well log overview data base should be made available to the public, consultants, andagencies for overview studies and as a reference to the well log files. Any guidelines forusing this information, such as well owner privacy, should be developed by the County inconjunction with the data forum. County staff should be responsible for notifying users ofany well owner privacy issues and guiding any contact with well owners.

T.4.3. Accuracy ImprovementSanitariums, inspectors, researchers, field technicians, or consultants working for County,State, or Federal agencies making field visits to sites regarding wells should collect new,more accurate data on the location and elevation of the well for inclusion in the data base.The Counties should acquire adequate Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware, andshould provide training for employees doing site visits.

T.4.4. Well I.D. ParticipationThe State should encourage participation by County, Federal governments, and Tribes inthe Well I.D. program. Local and Federal governments will benefit from the unique wellidentification information created by Dept. of Ecology's Well I.D. program. Therefore,local and federal governments should participate in Ecology's Well I.D. program whenfield checking any wells in the DQ Area by tagging the well. Ecology should make I.D.tags and tagging training and/or instructions available to local and Federal agencies,consultants, and other field workers. Ecology should consistently enforce requirementsfor well drillers to tag new wells and include the Ecology unique well I.D. numbers onwell logs.

T.4.5. Well Driller EducationThe Dept. of Ecology should develop educational materials for well drillers so thataccurate information will be



obtained from new well logs. The educational programs should include location andelevation determination using section maps and topographical maps and lithologystandards. New technology such as GPS hardware should be encouraged as standardequipment for well drillers.

T.4.6. Well Log Form ModificationThe required well construction form (well log) for the N.E. Olympic Peninsula shouldspecify that depth of completed well reflect depth below ground surface rather than fromthe top of the well casing. The form should also include the following additionalinformation:

1) County parcel number;2) Dept. of Ecology unique well I.D. number;3) Address of well location and/or sketch map of well location in relation to

geographic features (such as roads, buildings, terrain, etc.);4) GPS location and elevation;5) Standard lithologtic terms.

T.4.7. Dept. of Ecology ReviewEcology should carefully review each new well log for completeness, and should developa demerit system and/or impose fines on well drillers for incomplete well logs.

Volume 1

Chapter 10

Public CommentsUnaddressed Agenda

Public Comment 10.1

Chapter 10Public Comment and

Unfinished Agenda

Chapter OverviewThis Chapter includes summarization of oral comments, responses to public questionnaires, andother written comments on the April 1994 Draft of the DQ Plan. Oral comments are from theMay 1994 public meetings in Chimacum, Jefferson County, and Sequim, Clallam County. ThisChapter also includes the "unfinished agenda" to be considered in the future.

Clallam Questionnaire ResponsesQuestionnaires were made available to the 110 attendants of the May 1994 Clallam Countypublic meeting on the Draft DQ Plan. A total of 5 questionnaires were returned from ClallamCounty attendants.

1. Did you hear any recommendations you strongly support?

Instream Flows/Fish Habitat and Habitat Restoration -- Small streams are an important habitatfor salmon and trout. Several of these small streams have been "charged" by irrigation ditch tailwaters for many, many years and the chemistry of the water is largely determined by the sourceof the irrigation waters.

Population growth limitations. What is the rush now -- this implementation can wait six months.

1. Irrigation Conservation -- Chapter 6: E. Clallam Recommendations: Figure 7: ManagementStrategies for Conservation and Efficiency is well stated and implemented ASAP.

2. Ground Water --Chapter 6: E. Clallam Recs: 011.1, 011.2, 011.2.1, 011.2.2, and 011.2.3 /C11.3, C11.4, C11.5 are acceptable: Lack of consensus removes from consideration by State.011.6 is of importance by also lack consensus. Hopefully County can use data to implementor restrict development to protect quantity and quality of water available. Over developmentcould lead to very bad results for all of us.

1. Irrigation Conservation -- Well thought out.2. Ground Water -- Must complete Water Resource Study while holding development in

abeyance -- Reference Chapter 6 C.11.2, 0.11.2.1, 0.11.2.2, and 0.11.2.3. We encouragemetering C.l 1.5 and study 0.11.2. Re: East Clallam Water Mgmt Sys. C.13, etc..


10.2 Public Comment

Implementation could be a plus if county uses data to "lead" decisions permitting growth.However, if development request drive water permit decisions, it's all a loss.

Strongly support water resource study. Recommendations should be made on the basis of fact,rather than speculation. How unfortunate water resource study and inventory could not havepreceded the planning process rather than following.

2. Did you hear any ideas you strongly oppose?

Meters on wells area waste -- find the aquifers and their size.

A comment was made that irrigation ditch tail waters are to be managed to "zero" water intostreams/creeks. This could be disastrous to the fish habitat restoration projects being promoted tofarmers who have small streams on their farms.

Not at 5/16/94 meeting. Would like to know final draft contents.

Overall, no strong objections.

Strongly opposed to recommendations requiring additional well permitting or reducingexempted well status without solid hyro-geological data. Also, encouraging community wellsrather than single family wells is designed for bureaucratic control and does not appear to benefitthe watershed.

3. Are there any recommendations you did not hear that the RPG has not dealt with in theplanning process?

At this meeting there was no information on aquifers -- spend money on finding that.

I really didn't hear much about the water quality management efforts to improve river water forfish habitat.

4. How would you rate Regional Water Planning as an aid to your community's over-allplanning efforts?

It is mandatory.

Since Plan has identified a number of problems and set guidelines to remedy same, it shouldhelp. We need more data for future reference.

Has identified and set basics for action, overall good start, even though late.

Regional water planning must be based on hard data. To the degree the planning is based onreality, we have a useful aid. To the degree the planning is based on speculation we have a toolto control the populace which can be expected to lead to abuse.


Public Comment 10.3

5. How did you hear about this meeting?

Sequim Press Flier from Meeting attended by neighbor. Newspaper and personal contacts. Wordof mouth.

6. Is there anything you can tell us to help produce a better Regional Water Plan?

The second draft had several paragraphs with incomplete information. Example page 35 (top),see page 15.

Will bear in mind and if discover anything to help, will contact you.

Not yet.

Use water from Sequim Wastewater and Sewer Plant to irrigate as much farmland, parks, golfcourses, and timberland (tree farms) as possible to case river withdrawal.

Clallam Oral CommentsThe following comments were made by attendants of the Clallam Public Meeting May 1994. Allcomments are summarized.

1. The issue of the cost of the DQ Project is not big factor when distributed over all Washingtonresidents.

2. Ecology lay-offs will result in delays.3. Management should be based on science.4. Rehabilitated runs of salmon in small streams may be affected by the Plan.5. Thanks for the work on the Plan.

Regarding meters on exempt wells, in water-short times, people will cooperate. Try to getvoluntary compliance, rather than regulatory. Community wells should be metered; but notsingles. People want to do right, they just don't know. Roger Schmidt explained that exemptwells supplying multiple houses can be used for a total of 5000 gallons per day, includingirrigation of 1/2 acre total -- not irrigation of 1/2 acre for each house on the system.

People need scientific data in order for a plan to have credibility. Much work has been done andis still being put together.

1. Need to stop stock transfers of fish.2. Allocation of water is happening during a drought year, not an optimum year.


10.4 Public Comment

3. Concerned about the affect of "ditch seeping" -- where does the water go? Adjudication saidthey were to use water for ag., stock, and domestic use. It didn't say anything about groundwaterrecharge.

Tailwaters at Greysmarsh have been re-routed to a pond with cutthroat and coho, as an exampleof "working" tailwaters. The habitat group needs to happen immediately. It also needs moreecological factors. Consider end product analysis: What's the goal? 20 years isn't long term whenit comes to water resources. Putting tailwaters back into the river needs to be based on biology.Evaluate on a case-by-case biological need. Regarding the term "dredging" in the glossary: it canbe positive. In the DQ Plan, distinguish between wild and native fish.

Need a broader outlook than just environment and the region. Look at total systems; don't let onepart of the system get out of hand.

Have single domestics well head protection problems. Community systems may be harder on thesystem, but they are harder to control. Spreading out with more wells makes it so you don't workone area too hard.

As a member of a community system which would have a meter, there may be another way ofgetting at water use such as through electrical use. This would eliminate the need for meters.

Regarding a watershed protection district: what happens at the end of June when funds run out --there will be a library, but there needs to be funding to keep it going: garnering new informationand knowledge of deep aquifer recharge. We need to know relationships between growth andrecharge. Strong support of a watershed protection district to knowledgeably build plans.

Concerned about small streams and their habitat. Stream chemistry is determined by the water'sorigin. One of the comments was to eliminate tailwater -- which could affect stream chemistryand fish. Zero tailwater needs analysis for fish habitat improvement projects, especially byschools.

There was no mention of upwelling of fresh water in the straits.

Need to build in incentives for meters and conservation. If you use over X amount, then...

Gierin Creek (fed by Sequim Prairie Ditch, shallow ground water, and springs) and its environsare worth preserving. Other similar creeks also worth preserving.


Public Comment 10.5

Jefferson Questionnaire ResponsesQuestionnaires were made available to all 17 attendants of the May 1994 Jefferson Countypublic meeting on the Draft DQ Plan. A total of 3 questionnaires were returned from JeffersonCounty attendants.

1. Did you hear any recommendations you strongly support?

Water Resources Study

Ground Water - Further the data collection and interpretation. This is not a "plan" it is anoutline for planning. A "plan" has clear goals with defined objectives and a specific time linewith real due dates.

The "Gap"

2. Did you hear any ideas you strongly oppose?

Watershed Council -- will duplicate several layers of ineffective government, i.e. Ecology,WUCC, PUC. Also the idea of transferring surface water rights to groundwater with thesame date: that creates more problems than it solves. People's needs carry more weight thatthe needs of fish.

1. Ground water cannot be identified as "most potential" for use when so little is known in EastJefferson County. New uses are in conflict with single domestics.

2. Ground water should be protected when it is in continuity with single domestic wells -- aswell as when in continuity with streams.

3. Transfer of surface water rights to ground water "without losing dates" puts those users indirect conflict with single domestic users and in some cases will deny them their currentstatus in time -- and may negatively impact those single domestic wells.

4. Community systems are suggested instead of single domestics -- without involving singledomestic users for input. Not all areas are suited to community systems. In fact, the PUDsuggested in their study that "large well" findings are unlikely in East Jefferson County.

5. PUD study says most groundwater appears to be in SOUTH East Jefferson County. Weshould move development there or face high costs for long distance pipes. What about singledomestics already there? and current exemptions?

6. "Start cards" are not required for single domestic wells -- only reports -- and only from"drillers." Many single domestics still drill their own -- there is no requirement for them toreport.

1. Metering wells2. Doing away with 5000 gallon exemptions3. Drying up wetlands because of better irrigation ditches4. Instream Flows


10.6 Public Comment

3. Are there any recommendations you did not hear that the RPG has not dealt with in theplanning process?

Groundwater -- has not been dealt with adequately. The project was mostly about rivers but theboundaries included much more area than the river drainage. So it should have addressed all thewater problems in the designated area.

There seemed to be a lot of concern that there water not enough water. How we use it (water)should be the issue.

4. How would you rate Regional Water Planning as an aid to your community's over-allplanning efforts? Essential Minimally useful - if strategies get implemented. Useless if not.Poor

5. How did you hear about this meeting?

FlierMailing

6. Is there anything you can tell us to help produce a better Regional Water Plan?

You must involve single domestic users in the process.

Use more of information already in community instead of developing studies and collecting datathat had a very high dollar cost.

Jefferson Oral CommentsThe following comments were made by attendants of the Jefferson Public Meeting May 1994. Allcomments are summarized.

Regarding using streams for livestock: if livestock is currently in a stream, and the landownerbuilds a fence to protect the stream banks, would livestock watering fall under the moratorium onstream withdrawals, or could the landowner pump the same amount that the livestock had beendrinking directly from the stream? Need to clarify.

Regarding the recommendation to keep water resources within the region: does "the region"mean within political jurisdiction but means within watershed. Need to clarify.


Public Comment 10.7

There are probably aquifers under timber land that could be used, but perhaps that use would beprohibited by the DQ Plan because it would mean removing it from the region. The optionremains for those areas to be developed.

The County has received a proposal from person with commercial business planning to use awater catchment system. What about rain collection systems in regard to aquifer recharge?Should this be allowed in aquifer recharge areas?

Regarding standardized form for well drillers: standards for the data itself are needed to makewell logs more useful.

The sum of 8 caucuses' thoughts is not a plan. Implementation is the critical part of the plan.Can't comment now since implementation section is not done.

Other Written CommentsSeveral members of the public wrote more formal comments on the DQ Plan. The followingcomments were both written by Clallam County residents.

Dianne Kirst, Port Angeles April 28,1994In regard to Section R.12, "Wildlife Management," I agree with the premise that wildlife shouldreceive protection on the local and state level, and also that there should be certain designatedprotected habitat areas.

However, I strongly object to the DQ Project getting involved in areas outside the scope of itspurpose, which was to develop a water resource management plan. Greenspace corridors, asreferred to in 8.12.2 infers that the DQ Plan is getting involved in open space and greenbelt areasaway from the streams and rivers. The DQ Water Resource Management Plan should deal withthe Dungeness and Quilcene Rivers and nearby streams.

Our state and region already has in place numerous laws and agencies dealing with habitat andopen space protection issues. The Growth Management Act, for instance, deals with these issuesin depth. Therefore, I reiterate that the DQ Project should stick to its original goals as outlined inthe Executive Summary: "...to increase instream flows and improve salmon runs, to providemore efficient management use of water, and to protect the area's groundwater resources."

On page 7 of the Executive Summary relating to Jefferson County, one of the recommendationsis that "ALL future wells should receive permits and proof should be provided they are not inhydraulic continuity with any stream or river---" etc. This appears to be a back door effort tocompletely stop any new growth in that area, since it is now taking two years for the State toprocess a water rights application and that time is projected to be increased to 5 years. Until theState of Washington develops a more expedient method of issuing water right permits, it wouldbe unfair to the people of Jefferson County to require a permit for every private well.


10.8 Public Comment

Dan Moriarity, Sequim June 5,1994I am concerned that this document does not recognize inherent values of native fish populations.Fortunately, hatchery technology provides the means to reestablish wild fish ---there arecurrently wild (self-sustaining) populations in the watershed, and throughout Puget Sound, due tohatchery outplanting.

Nevertheless, the field of conservation genetics recognizes the significance of undiluted geneticstructuring in localized populations. The RPG could consider an experimental design formonitoring genetic diversity of fishes over time. Starch gel electrophoresis has been a validtechnique (see Allendorf, F.W., and R.F. Leary, 1988. Conservation and distribution of geneticvariation in a polytypic species, the cutthroat trout. Conservation Biology 2: 170184; andLoudenslager, E.J., and G.A.E. Gall. 1980. Geographic patterns of protein variation andsubspeciation in the cutthroat trout. Systematic Zoology 29: 27-42). This along with other planelements, would be expensive and require creative approaches to secure funding sources.Perhaps, though, offering scientific evidence of the yet unimpacted resources which this planintends to protect would be helpful in this respect.

What are the definitions of 'endangered', 'threatened`, and 'of special concern'? Why is the searuncutthroat classified as 'of special concern' throughout its Washington range, yet as 'threatened'along the Oregon coast (Frissell, C.A: 1993. Topology of extinction and endangerment of nativefishes in the Pacific Northwest and California. Conservation Biology 7:342-354)? How arbitraryis this terminology? Extinction, of course, designates finality. But as ambitious as this plan is, itis not likely that the fish and wildlife populations in question will reach that point, assuming thatunreasonable marine/high seas mortalities will be dealt with and averted federally. Whether theywill again reach historic levels is possible, but certainly another issue.

For background and case studies of western US non-salmonide fish extinctions, see Minckley,W.L., and J.E. Deacon, eds. 1991. Battle against extinction; native fish management in theAmerican west. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson.

C.10.2 Part A, is a policy recommendation which, biologically, would be difficult to justify on anacross-the-board basis. Also, I do not understand the relationship between this item and thebroader C.10 statement. Habitat maintenance in small streams has resulted in measurablypositive responses in salmonid utilization. A heightened sense of responsibility to the land isoccurring among landowners and users, cooperating agencies and schools due to these successes.And some regional landowners have demonstrated that recycling irrigation tailwater has withoutquestion contributed to "an overall net gain in the productive capacity of fish and wildlifehabitats" (Chelan Agreement, Appendix 4).

I feel that when the proposed USGS study is completed, there will be further opportunities toformulate scientifically justifiable conclusions and priorities regarding water distribution andmanagement of aquatic habitats.


Public Comment 10.9

R.11.2.1 and R.11.2.2, should receive a lower action priority than ensuring that optimum habitatstructure is in place region-wide. Optimum habitat structure can be visualized only after themagnitude of respective ecological limiting factors have been identified.

The Olympic National Forest and Washington DNR are cooperating in the Big QuilceneInteragency Watershed Analysis. What is the potential for duplications and/or conflicts betweenthe DQ Project and the above? I would expect that all government agencies involved inwatershed planning, for example, are fully aware of each other's intent, goals, and objectives.

The Plan should address invasions and introductions of exotic species, particularly when exoticanimals are introduced to 'fix' human-induced problems. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)is an example; they were removed from the State's list of deleterious exotic wildlife several yearsago by the Wildlife Commission. Instead of correcting the causes of premature eutrophicationleading to excessive macrophyte biomass in water bodies, they only mask them, and can produceunforeseen ecological complications. The goal of protecting aquatic habitats from exotic speciesseems just as appropriate as the second Chelan Agreement goal (Chapter 2, and R.1., Chapter 5).

The proposed regional water budget development strategy is essential (C.5.2., Chapter 8) RCW89.08, Section 220(7) authorizes Conservation Districts in Washington to take active interest in,among other topics, "water for agriculture and minimal flow ...watershed stabilization ...controlof soil erosion ...flood prevention and control ...outdoor recreation ...restriction of developmentin flood plains... protection of fish and wildlife ...and prevention or reduction of sedimentationand other pollutants in rivers and other waters." Because 1) the USGS study will result in"information critical for area decision-makers to provide long-term policy determinations aboutland use...", and 2) a large number of constituents of the Clallam Conservation District residewithin the proposed study area, the District has an interest in participating in the study'sorganization and design, and in tracking and contributing to its progress. I currently chair thisBoard of Supervisors.

This process has been successful in generating dialogue among divergent interests. A variety ofcarefully and, apparently, tediously constructed goals, objectives, and policy recommendationsfollows a very well done characterization segment. The result is a comprehensive approach tosolving water management problems.

From the standpoint of a planning document designed to provide means to attain ends, the DQreport largely deals with defining and categorizing the former. I feel there is a need to furtherdefine the end points of water resources planning. For example, although this is a 20 yeardocument (scoping statement, Chapter 2), the year 2015 will certainly not represent the end pointof regional water management problems. It is also possible that "the goal of the State is toaccommodate growth in a manner which will protect the unique environment of the state"(Environmental Protection MOU, third paragraph), is an oxymoron.


Public Comment 10.10

R.1 (Chapter 5) should be approved by the Department of Ecology, as well as by the legislature,and required as an interjurisdictional conservation/planning goal. Water supplies in the WesternUS have too often met their demise; this region should grab the opportunity to avert themisfortune.

Unfinished AgendaDue to time and budget constraints, the following Regional Planning Group goals and objectiveswere not considered, and should be considered in the future under the "unfinished agenda:"

1. Goal 3, c: under this goal, "protect, maintain and enhance estuarine ecosystems for thebenefit of nearshore marine life" was not seriously considered. Though the directlinkages between the rivers, wetlands, and estuarine and marine systems wereacknowledged, ample time was not available to fully consider these ecosystems.

2. Goal 6, objective C: "implementation measures ...legislation and funding mechanisms"were not addressed, except as in a general way, or as is indicated in this Chapter.

3. Goal 11: "To perform a realistic economic evaluation of program and plan elements"was not considered by the RPG.


Volume 2

Chapter 11

DQ Goals & Objectives


Goals and Objectives 11-1

Chapter 11Goals and Objectives

Mission StatementOur mission in the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Planning Project is to workcooperatively to meet water quality and quantity needs of human and natural systems in amanner that will insure the sustainability of both.

Scope of ProjectRecognizing that water is a variable and limited resource; the regional planning effort hasaddressed both immediate and foreseeable water needs and resources for the next 20 years inthe Dungeness and Quilcene pilot planning areas, and has based it's work on the goals of theChelan Agreement and the goals developed by the Dungeness-Quilcene Regional PlanningGroup.

The Chelan Agreement Goals and Principles:• That water resource management decisions be by hydrologic unit or regional planning

area as defined in the "boundary" section in this document (the Chelan Agreement).

• That future conflicts will be reduced if water use needs located in a hydrologic unit firstbe met from water resources within that unit.

• The recognition that actions will be guided by the tribes' objective to achieve an overallnet gain of the productive capacity of fish and wildlife habitats and the state's relatedobjective to accommodate growth in a manner which will protect the unique environmentof the state as those goals have been identified in the Memorandum of Understanding onEnvironmental Protection. The participants understand the achievement of an overall netgain of the productive


Goals and Objectives 11.2

capacity may, in addition to instream flows, include a variety of other means.

• That the water resource planning process described in this Agreement shall in no wayaffect existing water rights without the consent of the water rights holder. Nor shall thisplanning process necessitate, require or limit any formal determination or resolution ofany legal dispute about water rights under state or federal law or Indian treaty. Thisprocess is an alternative process, voluntarily designed by the affected parties to build onthe existing system of water rights through a cooperative, flexible process to plan andmanage the uses of Washington's water resources.

• To develop and implement a program providing for conservation, efficiency, eliminationof waste, water reuse, and restoration of riparian habitat areas for water retention,including the development of legislation and/or regulations where appropriate.

• To assist the Department of Ecology in locating the resources for compliance,enforcement and administration of existing laws and regulations.


Dungeness-Quilcene Regional Planning Group Goals andObjectives

GOAL 1To define the regional planning project area.

Objective A: Agree that the location of the study falls within the boundaries of thehydrological units in the regional planning area.Objective B: Prioritize the planning within those areas.



GOAL 2To assess water uses and needs within the hydrological units of the planning area and determineif those needs can be met within the available water resources of the area.

Objective A: Inventory and record all established uses and needs.Objective B: Determine the total water resources of the areas.Objective C: Analyze the study results in relation to existing and minimum needs andavailable water resources of the area.

GOAL 3To achieve the assurance of the quantity and quality of water that is needed in the planning areato:a. Protect, maintain, and enhance the physical and biological integrity of the rivers, stream

corridors, groundwater and associated wetland and marine systems;b. Achieve an overall net gain of the productive capacity of fish, shellfish and wildlife habitat

by protecting, maintaining, and enhancing these habitats;c. Protect, maintain and enhance estuarine ecosystems for the benefit of nearshore marine life.

Objective A: Collect and assess available data/information to determine the needed quantityand quality of water.Objective B: Provide the means to fill the data/information gaps so that the RPG maydetermine the needed quantity and quality of water.Objective C: Design and implement procedures and strategies to provide for the neededquantity and quality of water.

GOAL 4To achieve the assurance of an adequate supply of water to sustain current and future agriculturalneeds.

Objective A: Investigate all possibilities for water conservation, including innovativemeasures to optimize water supplies.Objective B: Based on the actual needs, design funding mechanisms for conservationprojects.



Objective C: Design and implement conservation measures within the regional planningboundaries.Objective D: Develop and implement educational programs for agricultural water users.

GOAL 5To identify and resolve water use conflict through a cooperative process.

Objective A: Develop a voluntary process for water resource planning which includes allaffected parties.Objective B: Develop and maintain an understanding of the need to stay flexible and openminded during the water resource planning process.

GOAL 6To develop and implement a program providing for:

a. conservation,b. efficiency,c. elimination of waste,d. water reuse,e. restoration of wetlands and riparian habitat areas for recharge, water quality and

water retention,f. recommendations for legislation and/or regulation where appropriate.

Objective A: Investigate alternatives for water conservation and efficiency.Objective B: Analyze each alternative relative to the needs of the individual hydrologicunit, comparing:

1. efficiency and amount of savings,2. appropriateness of scale,3. future growth projections,4. cost effectiveness,5. environmental impacts.

Objective C: Recommend implementation measures including conservation, legislationand funding mechanisms.



GOAL 7To encourage compliance, enforcement and administration of existing laws and regulationsaffecting water resources.

Objective A: Design and implement a water resource plan in a timely manner consistentwith the Water Resources Forum's guidelines.Objective B: Encourage:1. Coordination of policies, plans, and management systems, with those of other

jurisdictions and governmental agencies within the regional planning boundaries.2. Compliance with and enforcement of regulations relating to habitat protection and

land use within the planning area.3. The development of regulations that are consistent, predictable and equitable

region-wide.

Note: there needs to be the clear understanding that there are different concerns in each county,though some are shared. Also that this a pilot plan for adaptation across the state (at least westside).

GOAL 8To build public understanding of and responsibility for water resource issues, and opportunitiesfor conservation, stewardship and improvement of water quality and quantity.

Objective A: Support already existing educational and conservation programs in bothCounties.Objective B: Encourage funding and implementation of programs for public educationabout conservation of water resources and habitat protection in the regional planningarea.Objective C: Link together the water conservation information throughout both Countiesas a means of information dissemination.Objective D: Encourage the development of water conservation education programs forthe general public, policy makers and appropriate interest groups. Objective E:Encourage incentives for and public recognition of water conservation and restorationprojects.



GOAL 9To assure an adequate supply of water to support sustainable economic and communitydevelopment for current and future residents of the regional planning area.

Objective A: Determine the current level of residential, commercial and industrial wateruse within the planning area.Objective B: Analyze the future requirements for residential, commercial and industrialuse based upon projected and potential population growth, and economic and communitydevelopment objectives of the planning area.Objective C: Investigate the feasibility and costs for residential, commercial andindustrial water conservation. Define and estimate the amount of water resources thatcould be saved for alternative purposes using various conservation scenarios.Objective D: Promote the design and implementation of conservation measures andincentives within the regional planning area.Objective E: Promote the planning and implementation of conservation educationprograms for residential, commercial and industrial water users.

GOAL 10To achieve the assurance of adequate quantity and quality of water and habitat to provide for thepreservation of scenic and aesthetic values, to sustain current and future recreational needs, andto encourage responsible use of public recreation areas.

GOAL 11To perform a realistic economic evaluation of program and plan elements.

GOAL 12To track the process and lessons of the pilot project and submit this information to theDepartment of Ecology, the Water Resources Forum, and the Washington State Legislature.


Volume 2

Chapter 12

Guidelines & Frameworkfor the Project


Guidelines and Framework for the Project 12.1

Chapter 12Technical Support

Chapter Overview

The cooperative water resources management process which produced the Dungeness-QuilceneWater Resources Management Plan developed out of a long history of planning efforts. ThisChapter includes materials which have formed the foundation for work in the DQ Project.

The Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Protection outlined a major commitmentby Tribes and State to increase production of the fisheries resource through cooperative efforts.The Chelan Agreement further developed the process for implementing the objectives of theMOU, including establishment of regional water resources planning. The DQ Project RPGGroundrules provided guidelines for behavior both in and out of meetings and helpedparticipants adhere to the spirit of the Chelan process.

Other pertinent materials which are not in this Chapter include the Regional Planning Guidelinesdeveloped by the Water Resources Forum.


12.2 Guidelines and Framework for the Project

Tribal/State Environmental Protection MOUMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN

FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES OF WASHINGTON STATEAND

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

1. PreambleFisheries and wildlife resources are of great value and importance to Washington citizens.Protection of these resources is a matter of high priority for Washington's Indian tribes and theagencies and departments of Washington state government.

The state and the Tribes are interested in making a major commitment to protecting the habitatand increasing production of the fisheries resource. Cooperative efforts between state agenciesand Tribal governments will assure protection of habitat and full success of enhancementprograms.

Each of the parties desires to restore, where appropriate, habitat that has been degraded throughprior activities and to enhance potentially productive habitat. The parties agree that thedevelopment of a cooperative plan to protect, restore, and enhance habitat is an essential elementof the discussions outlined in this memorandum. The parties agree to use good faith efforts tojointly seek funding necessary to carry out the activities contemplated in this agreement.

2. Summary of United States V. Washington Tribal governments in 1970 brought suit inUnited States v. Washington against the State seeking a declaration and enforcement of theirtreaty fishing rights. There were two distinct segments in that lawsuit. Phase 1 involved thedetermination of the nature and extent of the fishery harvest rights. Those basic harvest rightswere affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1979 and the federal court has retainedjurisdiction to fully implement those fishing rights.



In Phase 11, the Tribes allege that state agencies have been unsuccessful in properly protectingthe habitat. The Tribes seek a declaration that the treaties guarantee habitat protection and havealleged first, that state agencies have an obligation to protect the supply of fish and second, thatagency actions which damage, degrade, or destroy habitat or current levels of harvestable fishviolate treaty rights.

The parties of United States v. Washington recognize the potential for litigation of the Phase IIissues in either the general or specific sense. However, the parties have learned that the benefitsof cooperative resolution of disputes may exceed those obtainable through litigation. The Tribeshave expressed an interest in working cooperatively with the state in habitat and water protectionmatters, rather than pursue this expensive and time consuming litigation.

Further, the parties recognize that prior efforts of the State and the Tribes to resolve issues ofmutual concern have been enhanced by the active cooperation and participation of non-partiesrepresenting private interests. The parties recognize that the State will seek to cooperativelyinvolve these private interests in achieving the objectives State in the Preamble to protect naturalresources, improve where appropriate degraded habitat, and enhance potentially productivehabitat.

Accordingly, the parties join in this memorandum of understanding for the purpose of initiating acooperative approach to protection, enhancement, and restoration of fisheries habitat.

3. General PrinciplesThe State recognizes the Tribes as sovereign entities under federal law with certain governmentalauthorities and responsibilities. Accordingly, discussions under this Memorandum will beconducted between the parties on a government-to-government basis. While the parties agree topursue the cooperative approach outlined in thisMemorandum, they recognize that the litigation was initiated for the'purpose of establishing Tribal rights to habitat protection.

3.1 Tribal Concerns and Goals: The Tribes believe and contend that this right obligates thestate to protect the supply of fish, and actions which damage, degrade, or destroy habitat, suchthat the rearing or



production potential of the fish will be impaired or the size or quality of the run will bediminished, violate Tribal Treaty fishing rights.

The Tribes contend that the State does not give enough priority to protection of the fish habitatand therefore subordinates treaty-protected rights to other interests. The Tribes believe that theState's legal and fiscal authorities should be used to ensure that activities undertaken, managed,regulated, or permitted by the State shall result in a net gain to the productive capacity of the fishand wildlife habitats.

The Tribe's general long term policy objective of this Memorandum is the achievement of anoverall net gain of the productive capacity of fish and wildlife habitats. Achievement of thisobjective shall occur through the acts of protection and conservation of the productive capacityof habitats, the restoration of damaged habitats, enhancement of potentially productive habitats,and where appropriate, proper mitigation techniques.

3.2. State Concerns and Goals: Within the context of the litigation, the State has contested thenature and extent of the treaty environmental rights alleged by the Tribes. The State howeveracknowledges the benefit of attempting to address and resolve the underlying problems in anon-litigative context.

The parties further recognize that, although they may have differing views of the legal theories,the State shares interest and concern about protecting the fishery habitat. Therefore, the Stateenters into this Memorandum committed to cooperatively resolving environmental concernsraised in the litigation and to further protecting fisheries resources.

Washington has unique physical characteristics which support a variety of interests. Washingtonbenefits from a multi-faceted economy with diverse fishing, agriculture, and timber industries, aswell as industrial, retail and commercial entities. Washington's natural features make the state ahighly desirable place to live. Because of these characteristics, the parties anticipate increases inpopulation and economic growth. The goal of the State is to accommodate growth in a mannerwhich will protect the unique environment of the State.



Local governments exist under legal and fiscal authorities which create agovernment-to-government relationship between them and the State. The Tribes recognizethe importance of relationships with local governments throughout the State. The partiesrecognize the State will afford an opportunity for local government to properly representtheir authorities and responsibilities within discussions contemplated by this Memorandumof Understanding.

3.3 Habitat Protection and Water Use: The parties agree that they must increase theirunderstanding of the laws, regulations, ordinances, and jurisdictional system currently usedthat affect Washington's habitat and regulated use of water within the State.

The Chelan AgreementA retreat was held at Lake Chelan November 8-10, 1990. Officials of Tribal, State, andLocal government interacted with representatives of agriculture, business, environmentalorganizations, recreation, hydropower, commercial fishing, and other water-relatedinterests in plenary sessions, caucuses, mixed groups, and one-on-one meetings anddiscussions. Over 200 officials attended day and night sessions. Many facets of the issueswere discussed. Every opportunity was pursued to explore the pros and cons of variousapproaches. The result was a water agreement named the "Chelan Agreement, "finalizedMarch 8, 1991.

1. Preamble The purpose of the Chelan Agreement is to establish procedures tocooperatively plan for the management of water resources in Washington State to best meetthe goals and needs of all its citizens. In additions to forming the basis for state waterresource planning, the Chelan Agreement serves as a process for implementation of thegeneral objectives set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding on EnvironmentalProtection.1

_______________________1Tribal governments in 1970 brought suit United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp.312 (W.D. Wash. 1974); affd in Washington v Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443U.S. 658 (1979) against the State seeking a declaration and enforcement of their(continued on next page)



2. Goals and Principles

The Chelan Agreement recognizes that water is a finite resource. It further recognizes that thegoals and principles of this agreement include, in no particular order:

• That water resource management decisions be by hydrologic unit or regional planningareas as defined in the "boundary" section in this document.

• That future conflicts will be reduced if water use needs located in a hydrologic unit firstbe met from water resources within that unit.

• The recognition that actions will be guided by the Tribes' objective to achieve an overallnet gain of the productive capacity of fish and wildlife habitats and the State's relatedobjective to accommodate growth in a manner which will protect the uniqueenvironment of the State as those goals have been identified in the Memorandum ofUnderstanding on Environmental Protection. The participants understand theachievement of an overall net gain of the productive capacity may, in addition toinstream flows, include a variety of other means.

• That the water resource planning process described in this Agreement shall in no wayaffect existing water rights without the consent of the water rights holder. Nor shall thisplanning process necessitate, require or limit any formal determination or resolution

(continued from previous page)treaty fishing rights. Litigation which ultimately could interpret or lead to the quantification ofcertain Tribal claims to water currently is pending before the United States District Court inPhase II, U.S. v. Washington, 506 F. Supp. 187 (W.D. Wash. 1980), vac'd 759 F 2nd. 1353 (9thCir. 1985).

In Phase II, the Tribes allege that the State agencies have been unsuccessful in properlyprotecting the habitat. Within the context of this litigation, the State has contested the natureand extent of the treaty environmental rights alleged by the Tribes. The parties to U.S. v.Washington recognize the potential for litigation of the Phase 11 issues in either the general orspecific sense and have developed a Memorandum of Understanding on EnvironmentalProtection for the purpose of initiating a cooperative approach to protection, enhancement, andrestoration of fisheries habitat. Neither this agreement or the Environmental Protection MOU isa settlement of Phase II, U.S. v. Washington, nor shall either be construed to limit the right ofany party to act in any administrative, judicial or legislative forum to protect its rights.



of any legal dispute about water rights under State or Federal law , or Indian treaty. Thisprocess is an alternative process, voluntarily designed by the affected parties to build on theexisting system of water rights through a cooperative, flexible process to plan and managethe uses of Washington's water resources.

• Develop and implement a program providing for conservation, efficiency, elimination ofwaste, water reuse, and restoration of riparian habitat areas for water retention, including thedevelopment of legislation and/or regulations where appropriate.

• Assist the Department of Ecology in locating the resources for compliance, enforcement andadministration of existing laws and regulations.


Planning Guidance: Planning guidance to local/regional planner is provided by the goals andprinciples of this agreement, and the fundamentals of State water resource policy as listed in theWater Resources Act of 1971, as set forth in RCW 90.54.020. The perspectives of each caucuson water resource management are attached.

Because this cooperative planning process stands in contrast to judicial determination ofconflicting rights or claims to water, it will not result in the allocation of water among competinginterests. This cooperative process will not "allocate" water in this sense.2 However,implementation of plans developed through this cooperative process could result in theidentification of quantities of water available for specific purposes. Because of its cooperativenature, the results of this planning process will maximize the net benefits to the citizens of thestate.

_____________________________2 Any test currently found in any state law used to allocate, determine, or prioritize water rights

(such as the "maximum net benefits" test) has no application to tribal governmental interests inthis cooperative process, unless they determine otherwise. Neither the participation by allgovernments and other organizations and individuals nor their concurrence in generallyapplicable water resource guidelines, standards or criteria shall be deemed a waiver of anyfederal law obligations in regard to the rights of any of those parties or their members.



3. Water Resources ForumThe Chelan Agreement recommends the creation of the Water Resources Forum (Forum). TheForum will have the same number of representatives from each caucus as the Interim Team: 6Tribal, 3 State, 3 Local Government, 3 Business, 2 Fisheries (1 sports and 1 commercial), 1Recreational, 3 Environmental, and 3 Agriculture. Each caucus will select its own representation.Each caucus will assure its own internal communication. Each participant will have his/her ownvoice in decision making.

General Function: The general function of the Forum will be to: Shape state policy. Clarifyexisting terms and policies. Recommend statutory changes as needed. Provide policy guidance, ifnecessary, in addressing critical issues.

Generally, the Forum will perform the following functions and tasks in a prioritized order whichrecognizes that work related to specific regional planning processes shall be secondary to policyguidance:

I . Serve as a mechanism to review water resource planning and implementation.2. Continue the cooperative nature of the Chelan process.3. Provide creative solutions and options on issues of state-wide significance, such as policies

guiding the processing of pending water right applications or issues determining hydrauliccontinuity.

4. Develop criteria for selection of pilot projects.5. Monitor, evaluate, report on and recommend changes to the pilot planning process.6. Make interim modifications and amendments to the pilot planning process.7. Reconvene a plenary body as represented at the Lake Chelan retreat, if significant changes

are needed for the continued functioning of the planning process.8. Assist in making the transition from pilot projects to systematic planning state-wide.9. Provide assistance and support to the regional planning process.



Decision Making: The Forum shall make decisions by consensus. Consensus is defined as nonegative votes, with abstentions allowed. If no consensus is reached, such will be noted and allthe information generated during the process will be collected and made available to allparticipants.

The Forum will make recommendations to the State agencies. There is a commitment from theDepartment of Ecology and other relevant State agencies to give substantial weight to theconsensus agreements reached. The Forum will have discretion in setting its own agenda. Itemsfor consideration can come from:1. The Forum's own initiative.2. Response to agencies' requests.3. Response to requests for specific policy guidance from other organizations (particularly

regional planning groups).

The Forum's charge shall be on issues of state-wide policy or guidance, NOT day-to-daymanagement.

Review and Evaluation: The Forum will review and evaluate the implementation of the ChelanAgreement, including the Guidelines developed for this process. (See Section XI.) Participants inregional planning processes and other water projects shall be provided the opportunity toparticipate in this review. The Forum will prepare a report for use in review by legislative bodies.The Forum will report on progress by December 31, 1992, and submit a final report at thecompletion of the pilot projects. (See section IV.)

The Washington State Legislature shall review the pilot projects, the effectiveness of the Forumand the effectiveness of water resource planning and management in the State of Washington.

In conducting the review of the pilot projects, the Chelan participants recommend that thelegislature use the following to measure success/failure:

• Were the goals of the pilot projects satisfied? How many? Which ones?



• How efficient and cost effective were the pilot projects?• Was adequate funding provided for an effective planning process? If not, what was the

impact?• Do the plans satisfy the needs and interests of all of the caucuses?• Did the plans meet the schedules and deadlines?• Did the plans provide for broad-based participation?

Funding for the Forum is essential, but the level and mechanism is yet to be determined. Traveland per diem will be provided for Forum members (which will require a statutory authority).Staff for the Forum is essential so as not to deplete the time of State staff. If there are subgroupsof the Forum, they should also be funded. The Interim Team will serve as the Forum until suchtime as the Forum is convened.

4. Pilot Planning Process

To Initiate Water Resource Planning:1. The water resources planning process may be triggered by either of the following methods:

a. Petition by an individual. Any State resident may petition a general purpose localgovernment (city or county), Tribe, or the State Department of Ecology to initiateplanning. One of those levels of government must agree for the planning to begin.

b. Any of these governmental entities may convene preliminary discussions to begin theplanning process.

2. The Forum will recommend criteria for selecting pilot projects. The Department ofEcology, in cooperation with the Forum, will select at least two projects for planning to beconducted over the next three years, to field test the planning process.

1. The petitioner may direct its request to initiate a planning process to a general purpose localgovernment, Tribe or the Department of Ecology.

2. The general purpose local government or tribe, in consultation with the Department ofEcology, or Ecology itself, will be called



an initiating entity, The entity at this stage may consult with other governmental agencies,including affected special purpose local governments, to determine their willingness toparticipate in and pay for the planning process. The government entities may prepare anintergovernmental agreement addressing the proposed planning process. The governmentalentities will also conduct the public process and outreach to inform other interested partiesof the opportunity to participate in the regional planning process in order to facilitate theformation of caucuses. If mutually agreeable, the entity and the Forum may jointly conductthese activities.

3. An invitational meeting will be called, and at that meeting the caucuses and expectedagencies will be identified, and a time line will be set for the Scoping Process.

4. During the Scoping Process, the boundaries, time frames, caucuses and representatives ofthose caucuses will be identified, and a coordinating entity will be chosen.

5. Participation in the Regional Planning Effort: Opportunity to participate in the regionalplanning effort must be extended to representatives of affected state and local governmentsand Indian Tribes. It must also be extended to representatives of the following interests:

• Agricultural• Environmental• Fisheries, both sport and commercial• Recreational• Business

6. Additional caucuses may be added by consensus of the existing regional planningparticipants. If a group is not granted caucus status, it may petition the Department ofEcology for caucus status. The petition shall justify the need for the new caucus based onthe existing caucuses' goals. In reaching its decision, the Department of Ecology mayconsult with the Water Resources Forum.



7. Representatives will be chosen by each caucus. Government and interest groups who haveresponded affirmatively shall determine whether the number of parties participating isenough to allow the planning effort to commence.

8. Coordinating Entity: For the purpose of regional planning processes, any participatinggovernment entity or combination of governmental entities chosen by a consensus of theparticipating caucuses may be the coordinating entity. The coordinating entity role is moreappropriate for a general purpose government due to their broad perspective. However,some flexibility and collaboration is needed regionally since local governments may lackthe capacity to conduct a water planning process.

The coordinating entity will be responsible for administering the process and entering intocontracts agreed to by the planning group. The coordinating entity shall also be responsiblefor coordinating intergovernmental agreements among the participating entities, asnecessary.

10. Those federal agencies that have an impact or would be impacted by regional planningshould be invited to participate in whatever manner is dictated by that region.

11. In regional planning, all appropriate State agencies shall participate, including theDepartment of Ecology. Ecology's role in finalizing planning projects will be to approve orremand. (See section on State Review of Completed Plans.) The reasoning for this is that thefinal rule-making role of Ecology on approved plans is informed by intervening steps (i.e.State Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedures Act) and is therefore legallyappropriate.

Dispute Resolution: Policy disputes will be resolved, where possible, through mediation. TheWater Resources Forum may also provide assistance to resolve disputes at the regional planninglevel.



Technical disputes may be resolved through the use of a technical advisory team or by retentionof an agreed upon outside technical expert.

Boundaries: Boundaries will be selected during the original scoping process and submitted toEcology for review and approval. The planning region will be one or more Water ResourceInventory Areas (WRIA's), unless there is a specific need for a smaller area within a WRIA.which is a specific hydrologic area. Larger planning units/regions will be one or more contiguousWRIA's or other contiguous hydrologically justifiable units. If there is no need for coordinationamong more than one WRIA, one WRIA can constitute a "region."

Other than planning by an Indian Tribe within its reservation, any water resource planningactivities within the exterior boundary of a reservation can only be done by mutual agreement ofthe affected Tribe and the State.

For the purposes of the pilot regional planning processes, the Department of Ecology will selectthe regions, based on the recommendations of the Forum.

All planning boundaries will be determined by using resource- and user-based factors. Achecklist incorporating the following factors should be developed by the Forum to ensure theirconsideration in determining boundaries:

Resource Based Factors:1. Hydrology: Planning boundaries should primarily reflect hydrological, rather than

political boundaries. This may include groupings of watersheds which have severalcharacteristics in common such as geological conditions, gradient, precipitationpattern, etc.

2. Fisheries Management: Areas containing stocks which are managed under similarfisheries allocation and enhancement goals should be grouped together. Majorwatersheds have specific enhancement goals and often have fisheries rebuildingstrategies which would be affected by water



resource planning. Some regions are already grouped for harvest managementpurposes; for example, Hood Canal is considered a "region of origin." It should benoted that watersheds can have extended areas management. For example, thedepleted coho runs of the Skagit system impact management in all interceptingfisheries including the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Ocean.

User Based Factors1. Similar Out-of-Stream Uses: Watersheds exhibiting similar types of uses can be

planned collectively more easily than diverse uses. Also, the broader geographicalplanning base gives planners greater flexibility of methods to achieve their goals.Examples of dissimilar uses would include municipal, industrial and agricultural,since these uses have different seasonal patterns and distribution systems. An areacontaining several similar uses should probably constitute a single planning unit.

2. Similar Land Use Patterns: Characteristics would include rural/urban, agricultural,forest based, industrial, municipal, growth pattern and rate.

3. Water Supply Linkages: Watersheds which involve out-of basin transfers need to belinked for planning purposes. For example, Dungeness River water is transferred tothe Sequim watershed, even though the two areas are in different WRIA's.

4. Manageability of the Process: Factors which may lead to grouping or splitting areasinclude the population base, size of area, availability of a key governmental andaffected interest groups, and other public education efforts. Some areas which havebeen involved in water quality plans may already have formed active watershedmanagement committees. Areas which cover wide geographic territories with sparsepopulations may need to group WRIA's since key jurisdictions would be required toparticipate in several forums.

Linkages: Regional planning efforts need to recognize the existence of and relationshipsbetween a variety of other planning activities. In



scoping and developing regional plans, participants should avoid duplication. In developing awater resource plan:

• There is recognition that water withdrawals can impact water quality. Therefore waterquality, both potability and environmental quality issues, when related to water use andavailability, should be integrated into the planning process. Local land use planning andpermit decisions which will protect the water resource or create demands for water shallbe compatible with water resource planning.

• Local governments shall provide for the protection of the water resource and shall linkdevelopment and land use planning and zoning to water availability.

• Consideration should be given to what, if any, linkages between on-reservation andoff-reservation water use and management exist or should be incorporated into a waterresource plan. Reservations are legally distinct units with a different body of applicablelaws.

• Other Federal, State and local programs which impact water resource use andavailability should be integrated with the water resource planning process.

The following are examples of such processes or programs:* U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty* Columbia River Systems Operation Review* FERC licensing of hydropower facilities* Forest Service Planning* U.S./Canada Flow agreement on Columbia River* Bureau of Reclamation Operations/Contracts* Court Approved U.S. v. Oregon Columbia River Fishery Management Plan* Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish and Wildlife Program* Various Wild and Scenic River proposals and related planning processes* Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area planning process* Watershed planning process by the Department of Fisheries* Watershed planning required by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority* Comprehensive Hydroelectric planning process



* Growth management process* Coordinated water system planning process* Game Fish 2000 plan by the Department of Wildlife* State Scenic Rivers program* Groundwater Management area program* Priority Species and Habitat Project (WDW)* U.S. v. Washington Fisheries Management Plans* Water System Comprehensive Plans* Land Use Plans* Threatened and Endangered Species Act

Proposal/Scoping: The regional planning group will complete the scoping process bydetermining the following:1. Participation and workplana. List of participants to be included, name, affiliation, and alternatesb. Designated coordinating entity(ies)c. Intergovernmental agreements necessary to implement planning processd. Milestones and workplane. Public involvement and SEPA compliancef. Public education elements

2. Identification of resources needed for planning process from state and regionalparticipantsa. Staffing requirementsb. Technical expertisec. Fundingd. Other commitments

3. The scoping process shall consider and determine at a minimum which of the followingelements shall be addressed in the plan:a. Groundwater

i. water quality protectionii. conservationiii. rechargeiv. inventory of current and exempted uses/data collection/methodologies



v. out of area distributionb. Surface Water

i. water qualityii. conservationiii. minimum instrearn flowsiv. inventory of current and exempted uses/datav. collection/methodologiesvi. habitatvii. out of area distributionviii. peak flow management

c. Consumptive Needs i. Domestic ii. Agricultural iii. Hatcheries iv. Hydroelectric v. Industriald. Non-Consumptive Needs

i. Instream Flowsii. Recreationaliii. Aestheticsiv. Ecosystemv. Culturalvi. Rivers assessed as eligible for designation as state scenic riversvii. Rivers assessed as eligible for designation as Federal Wild and scenic riversviii. Fish and Wildlifeix. Hydroelectric

e. Relationship between surface and ground water

4. Description of relationship to other planning processes (see above).

The completed scoping document will be submitted to the Department of Ecology.



State Review/Approval of Scoping: The Department of Ecology will review thescoping document for completeness and compliance with applicable State andFederal laws and regulations, and water resource planning guidelines. In reachingthis decision, the Department of Ecology shall have the responsibility of involvingother State agencies where their participation is necessary to the success of theproposed planning effort. This will ensure the involvement of State agenciesnecessary to assist in the planning effort and to implement the plan. If foundsatisfactory, the regional planning process may begin. If not in compliance,Ecology will remand the scoping document to the regional planning group formodifications.

Plan Development and Decision-Making: The regional planning group willconstruct a plan that addresses the elements identified through the approvedscoping process. The plan must be consistent with applicable State and Federallaws and guidelines. The plan development process will be integrated with theSEPA process.3 Throughout the plan development process, the regional planninggroup will receive public comments as required by State law and the plandocument will be written as the SEPA document. In addition to the appealsprocesses detailed herein, plan development will be required to be integrated withthe SEPA process.

Each caucus will have one voice in decision-making. The planning group willattempt to reach consensus whenever possible. In cases where consensus is notpossible, decisions will be made by a consensus of the government caucuses and amajority of the interest group caucuses. Minority reports, if prepared, shall beincluded in the plan document.

Where consensus among the governments (Tribal, State, and local governments)and/or a majority of the interests is not achievable, the Department of Ecologyshall assume the lead role in assuring that the

_________________________

3 This agreement will not result in SEPA being made applicable to tribal water planning withinIndian reservations nor will SEPA compliance necessarily satisfy federal law in regard to treatyand other reserved rights.



plan is completed for the pilot projects in a timely fashion, not to exceed twenty-four (24)months.

State Review of Completed Plans: The Department of Ecology shall review the completedplans for compliance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including the StateAdministrative Procedures Act and SEPA, and conformance with Ecology's water resourceplanning guidelines developed under this process. (See Section XI.) In conducting such a review,Ecology shall give substantial weight to the regional plan in meeting the fundamentals of theWater Resources Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 90.54), Memorandum of Understanding, and theagreed-to goals. All plans shall recite "nothing herein authorizes the impairment of any treaty orother right of an Indian tribe or member under Federal law."

The State shall approve or remand the plan within 90 days. Extension may be recommended bythe Water Resource Forum. Public comment will be taken throughout the review of the plan. Apetition for review on process grounds may also be made to the Department of Ecology when itreviews the final plans for consistency with state guidelines. The Department may approve theplan as written or it may remand the plan to the regional planning entity for revisions. TheDepartment may not make changes to the plan.

Appeals Process: There will be no appeal of the planning effort during the planning process.The appeals mechanisms available to challenge a completed regional water resources plan willbe those currently available under existing law. Current rights and standing to appeal are notdiminished in any way by the proposed planning process. Appeals of a plan can be made to theappropriate court. In addition, actions taken by the State or local governments to implement theplan, such as permits, regulations, or local ordinances can be appealed to the Pollution ControlHearing Boar, or the appropriate appeals body.

Implementation: Once a regional plan is completed, the Department of Ecology will prepareand adopt implementing regulations as required by law. Local governments will prepare andadopt any ordinance needed to implement the plan at the local level. Once adopted, theregulations and ordinances would be binding on the State and local



jurisdictions in their related planning and permit activities. The Department ofEcology will be the State entity that reviews the regional plans for compliancewith state law and state standards. The Department of Ecology, in cooperationwith other State agencies, relevant Federal agencies, Tribal governments, andother interested local governments, will also perform the preliminary basininventories that precede the regional planning processes.

Evaluation, Guidance, and Adaptation of Process: The planning processdescribed in this Agreement is intended to be applied to all regions of the State inneed of water resource planning and will be implemented in at least two regionswithin the next three years. It is the intent of the Forum to evaluate the processperiodically, identify improvements, and adapt the process accordingly for futureapplications.

While the interests and organizations who developed this planning process soughtprimarily to achieve a cooperative process for water resource planning, theyrecognized that the broad goals of this effort should also be integrated by theDepartment of Ecology into it ongoing water resource management activities.Further, local governments recognize that their ongoing land use or waterresource activities also could be affected by the goals of this cooperative process.

Notwithstanding the commitment to cooperation, the interests and organizationssupporting this Agreement recognize that disputes may arise in regions where acooperatively developed plan has yet to be implemented. The cooperative natureof the planning process described in this Agreement is intended to encourageresolution of such disputes, where possible, through mediation or other assistance.

5. Organized Response to Critical Situations Which Require Action Now Inwatersheds other than those involved in the two pilot projects, there will needto exist a mechanism to address issues and disputes over water. Thismechanism established the ability to deal with critical situations and listssome of the tools for resolving issues in these areas. It is intended to takeadvantage of existing laws and governmental structures and is explicitlyintended to notify and inform the parties of



actions which may have an impact on the resource. It is not intended to expand on existing law,or otherwise alter the rights and responsibilities of the governmental entities. An emergencyregulation, followed by a permanent regulation, shall be enacted establishing the mechanism todeal with critical situations.

This mechanism will be used when one of the following actions occurs:1. Any of the three governmental entities (State, Tribal, General Purpose Local Government)

find that a need exists to apply the mechanism. Such a finding can include the need tofacilitate communication and coordination on issues relating to water quantity and relatedwater quality concerns.

2. Any of the governmental entities applies their respective permitting processes to a basin orWRIA which has been designated as "critical situations" on the basis of limitations as towater supply and related water quality concerns.

3. 3. If a special purpose local government requests that the mechanism be initiated to deal withthe critical situation, the general purpose local government, which includes a portion of thespecial purpose district service area, shall initiate the mechanism on their behalf.

The mechanism shall permit the affected governmental entities to evaluate existing conditions orproposed actions which might have an impact on the resource. Under this mechanism, a basin orWRIA. could be classified by agreement of the governmental entities into one of two categories:

1. Critical Resource Impact: Designating the water resource as being over-appropriatedor adversely impacted by water quality issues. Any action in such a basin or WRIAwhich will likely have an adverse impact on the instream resources as expressed inthe planning guidance of this Agreement would likely be delayed or denied if suchaction might further harm the resource.

2. Probable Resource Impact: Designating the water resource as being in need of furtherevaluation to determine the nature and extent of the impacts resulting from existingconditions or proposed actions. After full evaluation, the



water resource shall be reclassified as having either a critical resource impact orno impact, depending upon the findings.

When a proposed action or existing condition requires further evaluation or data collection, anumber of tools shall be applied as necessary to protect the resources. These include, but are notlimited to, targeted conservation efficiency, re-use, compliance and enforcement; disputeresolution assistance; Memoranda of Understanding and other agreements; local governmentrestrictions on permit issuance or moratoria; basin withdrawal by adoption of administrativeregulations under RCW 90.54.050 or limited state permit issuance. The Forum shall review theneed for guidelines to assist in the implementation of this section.

6. Water Resources Planning and Growth ManagementRecognizing the need to integrate the planning process outlined in the Chelan Plan with otherland and water resource planning processes, the Chelan Plan recommends:

1. Amending HB 2929 to include a water resource component. This component shall include,among other provisions:

a. Local planning efforts shall recognize water availability and quality as key factors inan area's "carrying capacity."

b. Wherever State, Tribal, or Federal authorities believe there to be problems with wateravailability or quality that will affect a local governments permitting process underSection 63, these cases will receive first access to funding for technical data analysis.Such technical data analysis shall be completed in a timely manner.

2. Amending HB 2929 to include specific provisions whereby a model intergovernmentalagreement, similar to the "Centennial Accord," between local (including special districts)and Tribal governments is developed and adopted.

The Chelan Plan also recognizes that water resource planning, as outlined in this document,will not take place on Tribal reservations without the consent of the appropriate Tribes.



7. Data ManagementThe Chelan Agreement recognizes the importance of data to water management. The ChelanAgreement supports the continuing efforts of the Data Management Task Force in thedevelopment of a data management plan and the collection of essential data necessary, amongother things, to commence the pilot planning process. The Chelan Agreement also supports openaccess to any information collected and managed by all state agencies pursuant to State law. Forefficiency, the collection, analysis, and management of water resource data will be donecooperatively with State, Tribal, local and Federal governments.

8. ConservationThe Chelan Agreement recommends that a task force, composed of representatives appointed bythe caucuses, be created to develop legislation for the 1991 legislative session. In developing thelegislation, the task force should consider:

1. Removing impediments to conservation, including the effect on wetlands loss due toimproved efficiencies.

2. Providing incentives to promote conservation, water use efficiency, and re-use of water.3. Providing funding for incentives, particularly for problem areas.4. Determining how this program fits within the Department of Ecology's compliance effort.5. Determining the relationship of conservation to the waste of

water.6. Removing impediments such as taxation on water use efficiency improvements.7. Restoration and enhancement of instream flows through, among other mechanisms,

conservation and more efficient management of the water resources.

In developing the legislation, the task force should utilize prior studies, legislative committeework, and draft Department of Ecology legislation.

The task force will attempt to make consensus recommendations. When consensusrecommendations cannot be reached, the task force



will present the alternatives considered and propose additional work, if appropriate.

The task force will complete its effort by January 31, 1991. The task force should be prepared toprovide a briefing before the January 31, 1991, deadline to appropriate legislative committees.

The public will be informed throughout the development of this legislation.

9. Public Information and EducationThe Chelan Agreement supports building a framework for on-going information process to buildpublic support for cooperative water resource planning and management. The Chelan Agreementrecommends development of an information strategy, to be reviewed and approved by the WaterResources Forum. The strategy shall identify and utilize existing information disseminationprocesses and integrate with and possibly delegate to, the Environmental Education Councilestablished pursuant to the Environment 2010 Executive Order. The education strategy shouldemphasize cross-cultural training for all water resource planning participants.

10. Funding Requirements and Strategies (Reserved)

11. State-wide Guidance The development of guidelines and principles is essential for the Stateto fulfill its stewardship role for resources. Guidelines should be developed as soon as possible.Guidelines will speak to the actual outcomes sought in plans. It is accepted that the 1971 WaterResources Act, and Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Protection (attached) arethe starting point for this planning process, but they need clarification.

These general guidelines must be developed before the pilot projects begin. The Interim Teamshould consider guidelines or pass the responsibility on to the Forum.



Guidelines will be in place during the duration of the pilots, but will be reviewed at the end ofthe projects. It is recognized that they will probably need refinement. The guidelines will beapplicable to all water resource planning subject to State jurisdiction and control.

RPG GroundrulesThe following groundrules for planning were developed by the Regional Planning Group for theDungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Project and adopted June 2, 1992.

1. ConsensusTo use the Water Resource Forum's definition of consensus as the basis for decision-making bythe Regional Planning Group (RPG). That definition reads as follows:

The Regional Planning Group shall make decisions byconsensus. Consensus is defined as no negative votes,with abstentions allowed. If no consensus is reached,such will be noted and all the information generatedduring the process will be collected and madeavailable to all participants.

• Any issue may be revisited again in an attempt to reach consensus.• Each party should state in writing why consensus was not achieved.

2. Adequate Response TimeAll members of the Regional Planning Group represent organizations and agencies interested andinvolved in water issues. For this reason, each member will be allowed time between meetings todetermine their response to major issues in front of the group for decision.

3. Public ParticipationPublic participation will be encouraged by adequately publicizing meetings and setting asidetime for public comment at each meeting.



4. Chelan AgreementThe primary mission of the RPG is directed to the goals and issues of the Chelan Agreement.

5. RespectRPG members commit to respect one another, listen to each other's views, and maintain positivecandor. Representatives commit to negotiating in good faith, and not to work against the processoutside the negotiations.

6. Information Will Be AvailableInformation such as technical reports, meeting minutes, maps, etc. will be available to everycaucus in a timely manner in as understandable and consistent format as possible.

7. AccountabilityThe RPG will conduct itself in a way to be accountable to funding sources, participatingcaucuses and the general public.

8. Orderly I Open MeetingsMeetings of the RPG will be conducted in a orderly manner to provide ample opportunity for allrepresentatives to participate, and maintain open discussion of the issues.

9. Encourage Group Creativity and FlexibilityMembers are committed to searching for opportunities to develop group solutions and to focuson the resolution of substantive issues.

10. Responsible Representation Every caucus should ensure that their representatives possessthe ability to: a) speak for the interests of the caucus; b) maintain a broad and flexibleperspective; and c) communicate with people of different viewpoints. Delegates have anobligation to review existing data relevant to the process. Delegates are responsible for keepingtheir alternates and caucuses informed.

Volume 2

Chapter 13

RPG Committees

RPG Committees 13.1

Chapter 13RPG Committees

Scoping CommitteeThe Scoping Committee acted as a work group to outline goals and objectives for RegionalPlanning Group activities, create a work plan, and provide guidance to the Project Coordinator asto the content of the Scoping Document required by Dept. of Ecology. The Committee consistedof one representative for each caucus. The Scoping Committee was formed in the fall of 1992,met bi-weekly, and then was sunsetted at the completion of the Scoping Document in January1993.

Advisory CommitteeThe Advisory Committee, consisting of one representative from each caucus, met as needed toadvise the Project Coordinator on policy issues, procedures, and process questions. ThisCommittee often met jointly with the Budget Committee, since so many "advisory" decisionswere directly linked to Budget questions.

Budget CommitteeThe Budget Committee, consisting of one representative from each caucus, met as needed tomake recommendations to the Project Coordinator and the Coordinating Entity on the DQProject budget.

Education And Public InvolvementPurposeThe educational goals of the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Planning Pilot Project are toinclude the concerns of members of the public and to educate members of the public on waterresources and their impacts on them. To reach these goals, efforts have focused on:

1) Educating the RPG on important information needed for decision-making;


13.2 RPG Committees

2) Allowing channels for public involvement throughout the planning process;3) Filling short-term gaps in educational programs;4) Creating a long-term educational plan;5) Promoting conservation;

Process and ParticipationThe Education Committee was first formed in August 1992 to plan and organize several fieldtrips for RPG members and other participants. The make-up of the Committee was primarilycaucus members. The field trips generated more questions among RPG members about waterresource issues. RPG members and other participants volunteered to organize topic focusmeetings consisting of presentations by two or more experts on a topic. The "focus" meetingshelped to answer questions from DQ Project participants, and to identify specific topics forRegional Planning Group discussion. The RPG also had one educational meeting focusing on theprocess aspect of cooperative planning.

Because some of the planning members wanted to do some on-the-ground educational activities,the Committee introduced the idea of using DQ Project funds to begin educational activities forthe general public. There was, however, no consensus on where efforts should be focused or howto proceed. In February of 1993, an Educational Advisory Team, comprised of local professionaleducators, began to meet to address the issue of water resource education for the general public.In March 1993 the Educational Advisory Team proposed to the RPG a list of short termeducational activities to be completed by June 30, 1993. It was accepted by the RPG. TheCommittee funded some already existing high-quality (and known to be effective) short-termeducational programs where funding gaps existed. In addition, new conservation materials weredeveloped, and a preliminary education plan for longer-term activities was written (see AppendixC).

Regional Planning Group Education

1. Field TripsA series of educational tours for Regional Planning Group members began with a tour of theDungeness River watershed in August 1992. RPG members also visited the Quilcene River,areas of interest concerning ground-water issues, and the Port Townsend Paper Mill. Evaluationsfrom participants were used to help plan later trips. The Dungeness River and the


RPG Committees 13.3

Quilcene River were revisited when discussions on gravel removal policies began.

2. Topic Focus PresentationsAfter attending the various field trips, RPG members had additional questions about waterresource issues. RPG members volunteered to organize topic focus sessions consisting ofpresentations by two or more experts and involved parties. Educational "Focus" presentationswere made as needed to answer the most pressing questions by RPG members. Topics includedDepartment of Ecology's Trust Water Rights Program, hydraulic continuity principles, theagriculture community's relationship with water, the principles of ground-water, Quilcene Riverfisheries and hatchery issues, and forest practices effects on water resources. The sessions werevideo taped for members who could not attend the meetings. The Chimacum High SchoolMulti-media Club filmed 2 of these sessions, combining these students' interest in film witheducation about water resources.

3. Water Policy Research In coordination with W.S.U., Evergreen State College intern DavidHutsell researched existing laws and regulations which apply to water resource management andconservation and summarized water management history leading up to the Chelan Agreement.

4. Regional Planning Group InterviewsIn March 1992, facilitator Emmett Fiske, and in May 1993 Evergreen State College intern DavidHutsell interviewed key DQ participants, summarizing their needs, expectations of, and concernsabout the project. The reports provided two separate "snapshots" in time to reflect on the processas a whole.

5. Process Education Work Shop In August 1992, part of a regular RPG meeting was devotedto a presentation by Kathrine Baril, W.S.U. Cooperative Extension on solutions to commongroup process problems. The attendants split into smaller groups to discuss individualperspectives on critical issues. Many participants felt that this meeting was the first time RPGmembers were really "talking" to each other.

In September 1993 the RPG participated in a special workshop by facilitators Bob Ness andKathrine Baril on collaborative problem solving in


13.4 RPG Committees

a consensus process. The participants spent considerable time learning about how to developeffective communication skills, and how to turn conflict into opportunities for mutual agreement.

Channels for Public Involvement

1. Caucus MembershipSeveral caucuses were comprised in part or completely of members of the public. TheRecreation, Business, Agriculture, and Environmental caucuses each have a broad range ofmembers from the public who are regularly involved in the DQ Project. Caucus members oftenattended committee meetings, special educational focus meetings, and RPG meetings. Caucusmembers were actively recruited at public meetings in October 1991, March 1992, and January1993.

2. Regional Planning Group MeetingsIn addition to opportunities to be involved through a caucus, Regional Planning Group meetingswere open to the public. Throughout the DQ Project process, RPG meetings were announced inthe three local newspapers. Members of the public often attended RPG meetings and tookadvantage of the public comment periods at each meeting. All public comments in meetingswere included in the meeting notes which are distributed to over 100 participants.

3. Publicity Members of the public have learned about water resource issues and DQ Projectactivities regularly through articles in the local newspapers. Staff has kept the newspaper editorsinformed about progress in the DQ Project and articles have been published on DQProject-funded educational activities, public meetings, technical studies, and recommendations,as well as more general information an water resource issues.

4. Public ForumsTwo sets of public meetings were held during the planning process. Several newspaper articleswere published in local papers both before and after each of the events. Also, fliers weredistributed, and caucus members were encouraged to invite people to the meetings. Local, State,and Tribal government representatives were also invited.


RPG Committees 13.5

• In January and February of 1993 the RPG held public meetings in each county to present thecompleted DQ Project Scoping Document to the public. Other than RPG members, 24 peopleattended the Sequim / Clallam County meeting, and 63 people attended the Chimacum /Jefferson County meeting. RPG members spoke on the background of the ChelanAgreement, the regional planning process, and the goals of the DQ Project. Then severalsmaller groups were formed where people could express their hopes and concerns for theplanning effort. Facilitators wrote people's comments on easels throughout the discussions.The easel notes were later summarized and distributed to RPG members.

• In May 1994, the RPG again held public meetings in both counties. This time the final draftof the DQ Water Management Plan was presented to the public. Other than RPG members,110 people attended the Sequim / Clallam County meeting and 17 attended the Chimacum /Jefferson County meeting. RPG members explained some of the key recommendations in theplan and answered questions from the audience. Written and verbal comments are included inChapter 10: Public Comment.

Short-Term Education Program Support The RPG and the Education Committee bothstressed priority interest in not "reinventing the wheel," and encouraged support for alreadyexisting and proven educational programs. They stressed working with the schools andsupporting classroom programs. This was because of the understanding of the impact of youtheducation, and the multiplier impact it has on families and other adults who are affected by thechildren in the programs. In addition, there are a lot of successful models of programs to offerstudents, and many gifted programs and teachers in the area. The Regional Planning Groupfunded the following activities between March and June 30, 1993:

Jefferson County Student and Teacher Training ActivitiesKatherine Baril of W.S.U. Cooperative Extension provided oversight to the Jefferson CountyEducational Programs including Student and Teacher Training, Water Conservation Materialsfor DQ Project Area, and Water Policy Education for the RPG. A total of 88 hours werecontributed in-kind and $610 by W.S.U. A summary report of the activities performed wasproduced.


13.6 RPG Committees

1. Quilcene School District Watershed J Shellfish Program Members of the local shellfishindustry, the U.S. Forest Service, 60 students, and 3 teachers were involved in this ShellfishEducation Program. Equipment was purchased to set up a shellfish aquarium in the classroom.The curriculum focused on watershed awareness, study of water temperature and salinity, andthe life cycle of the local shellfish resources. This was the first successful grass roots waterprogram in the Quilcene community, and was a model for local interest in the shellfishindustry's need for water quality.

2. Chimacum School District Watershed Activities and Tour This program included watershedawareness activities, education on the life cycle of the salmon, and tours of Chimacum Creek.As an offshoot of continued involvement of the community in education on Chimacum Creek,a high-school class has taken on the responsibility of monitoring a new stream gage installedby the U.S. Geological Survey for the DQ Project.

3. Port Townsend School District Wetland Instruction Over 72 hours of classroom instructionand field trips was completed by Middle and High School students on subjects such as wetlandmetaphors, watershed awareness, drinking water, conservation, and the role of wetlands ascontaminant filters. A watershed slide show was produced.

4. Port Townsend Marine Science Center A Ground-water Model, which uses types of sand andcolored dyes to show the normally invisible underground, was purchased to show the dynamicsof ground-water movement to Marine Science Center visitors, and is available for use in thelocal school district.

Clallam County Educational ProgramsEducational writer Tim McNulty, formerly of Clallam County Department of CommunityDevelopment provided oversight to the following Clallam County activities.


RPG Committees 13.7

5. School Student and Teacher Training Activities Funding to continue Sequim SchoolDistrict's existing Salmon in the Classroom program was provided. Equipment was purchasedfor the existing salmon egg tanks. Funds also helped continue a program of salmon releasesinto Bell and Matriotti Creeks. Two, 2-day Clam Camp sessions were held at CampRamblewood in Sequim Bay State Park. Sixth graders learned about the food chain in the bay,proper techniques for harvesting, and to use fecal coliform kits to learn how land activitiesaffect shore resources.

6. Irrigation Users and Ditch ResidentsClallam County Conservation District and the Water Users Association worked cooperativelyto produce a direct mailing newsletter to members of the irrigation district members and10,000 residents on irrigation districts. The newsletter focused on irrigation techniques toprotect water resources. Also, funding was provided to the Clallam County ConservationDistrict for the Model Farm Program.

7. Water Awareness For New Residents and General Public Clallam County Water QualityDepartment reprinted the following water resource and water quality education brochures:Living Along Irrigation Ditches, Protecting Water Quality at Home, Yard Maintenance andWater Quality, Understanding Your Septic System. The water brochures will be included withinformational packets and brochures to realty office visitors. The information was presentedto Sequim Association of Realtors and homeowners associations.

8. Ground-water EducationThe DQ Project co-sponsored Clallam County's ground-water education activities forNational Drinking Water Week. Two articles on ground-water protection were written forlocal newspapers. Ground-water education sessions were conducted in elementary schools. Aopen house on ground-water information was conducted.


13.8 RPG Committees

Long-Term Education

1. Preliminary DQ Project Education PlanA preliminary plan for Water Resource Education for the DQ Project Area has beendeveloped by Tim McNulty under the coordination of the Educational Advisory Team andEducation Committee. The Plan outlines a range of educational activities aimed at increasingthe public's awareness of water resource issues in the Clallam and Jefferson County planningarea. The plan targets a large variety of water users in the area. See Appendix C.

2. Pollution Prevention Outreach ProgramAs part of an EPA Pollution Prevention grant to The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Clallarnand Jefferson County Conservation Districts, and W.S.U. Cooperative Extension have starteda program to conduct landowner pollution prevention education, especially focused onagricultural practices and water resources.

Promoting Conservation

1. Conservation BrochuresAs part of the short-term educational work, a consultant was hired to compile existing waterconservation brochures applicable to the DQ area. With the cooperation of adjacent counties,agencies, and resources, brochures on the following topics were created for distributionthroughout the area at public meetings, presentations, and by request: Conserving Water anthe Home, Conserving Water in the Yard, Conserving Water: Rainbarrels, Cisterns andGraywater

2. Conservation ManualAlso, as part of the short-term educational work, the mare in-depth information collected forthe brochures was compiled in a water conservation training manual for citizens calledConserving Water For the Fish, the Farms, and the Future. This package may be used as aPUD, Agency or citizen/volunteer training package.

3. Conservation PlanIn March 1993 a draft Water Conservation Plan was prepared by the City of Part TownsendPublic Works Department for the DQ Project Area. The plan included a telephone survey toincrease public


RPG Committees 13.9

awareness and assess people's willingness to participate in a conservation program, and aprocedure to elicit participation is conservation. Available and recommended methods ofconservation were described and example ordinances for local jurisdictions were included. Thefinal plan would have specified conservation goals and emergency plans. Neither the TechnicalCommittee nor the Education Committee reached agreement on the need for regionalconservation plan. No further work on a DQ Project Water Conservation Plan was done.

RecommendationsThe DQ Project Education Plan in Appendix C contains the recommendations from thisCommittee.

Technical Committee ActivitiesPurposeThe Technical Committee was created in October 1992 to:1) Investigate what information and data exists on the water resources in the region;2) Identify gaps in existing information needed for effective planning;3) Recommend how to address data gaps within time and budget constraints;4) Provide and disseminate information and overviews to assist Regional Planning Group

decision making. The committee meetings have served as a forum for education anddiscussion on recent studies of interest to Regional Planning Group members.

ParticipationTechnical Committee participation has evolved throughout the stages of activities and cannot belimited to a simple list of members. Participants have included Regional Planning Groupmembers, Caucus members, and Local, State, and Federal agencies, Tribal governments,consultants, and interested citizens. All Regional Planning Group members and all committeeattendants received a monthly newsletter describing the latest activities. Equal caucusrepresentation was not a criteria for the make-up of the Committee, and was only an issue duringdecisions on which technical projects to fund.


13.10 RPG Committees

The Technical Committee met every other week for a total of 31 meetings. Approximately 900volunteer hours were contributed for Technical Committee meetings alone. Also, manyundocumented volunteer hours preparing information for meetings were contributed byparticipants.

ActivitiesOne of the first goals of the Technical Committee was to inventory and collect existing data andstudies in the project area and identify any information gaps. Participants were each givenassignments to inventory specific areas. Duplication of effort proved to be a problem both withefficiency and community relations (calling the same agency more than once by differentmembers), and few participants could commit to ongoing assignments. The Committeerecommended in November 1992 that two new staff positions be created to assist with theactivities of the Committee.

In March of 1993, a Research Staff member and Data Manager were hired. By request of theCommittee, staff collected and organized existing information into the DQ Project WaterResources Library, and compiled a library bibliography for use by DQ Project participants.1 DataManagement / GIS staff consolidated data from available sources, managed and analyzed thedata for the unique purposes of the DQ Project, and provided additional staff support fortechnical discussions in the Technical Committee and Regional Planning Group.2 The TechnicalCommittee also encouraged staff to participate in the Department of Ecology's Data ManagementTask Force (DMTF) projects.3

Beginning in November 1992, and continuing through March 1993 the Technical Committeedeveloped and refined a comprehensive list of both long-term and short-term information needsfor regional water resources planning. In April 1993, the Committee recommended that the RPGfund several of the short term studies to provide information where more was needed forupcoming RPG discussions.

____________________1 For more information on the contents of the DQ Project Water Resources Library, see

Chapter 4: Information Resources and Habitat Projects2 For mare information an DQ Project data management efforts, see Chapter 9: Technical Support.3 For more information on DQ Project involvement in DMTF activates, see Chapter 9:

Technical Support.


RPG Committees 13.11

The following studies and projects were funded by the Regional Planning Group.4

• Dungeness River Irrigation Ditch Leakage Assessment• Preliminary Assessment of Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Water Wells in Eastern Clallam and

Jefferson Counties• Sediment Transport and Deposition in the Lower Big Quilcene River and Evaluation of

Planned Gravel Removal For Flood Control• Instream Flow Recommendations For the Dungeness-Quilcene Area Salmon and Steelhead

Streams• The Status of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the Streams of Eastern Jefferson County,

Washington• Plan of Study for the Ground- and Surface-Water Resources of the DQ Area• Stream and River Gage Installation and Data Collection Well Log Data Base• River, Creek, and Shoreline Flyover Videos

The studies were completed and reviewed through the summer and fall and circulated in the RPGand among local agencies. A public presentation was made on each study, which werevideo-taped and are available in the DQ Library. Additional analyses, overviews, summaries, andstudies have been undertaken by volunteers participating on the Committee. Several of the shortterm projects done by the Committee have the potential to develop into longer term datacollection and studies.

_______________________4 For more information on technical projects, see Chapter 4: Information Resources and Habitat

Projects.

Volume 2

Chapter 14

Description & Analysisof the Pilot Project

Description and Analysis of the Pilot Process 14.1

Chapter 14Description and Analysis of the Pilot Process

Chapter OverviewIn this Chapter, many of the individuals involved in the Dungeness-Quilcene WaterResources Planning Pilot Project reflect on the project as a whole. Collected and compiled inthis Chapter are problems encountered, lessons learned, successes, and ideas for futureregional planning efforts. Viewpoints in this Chapter include that of the Coordinating Entity,DQ Project Staff, and RPG members. The Chapter begins with a brief overview of variousstages, events, and processes throughout the planning project.

Overview of the DQ Planning Process

Background: The Chelan AgreementThe 1990 Chelan Agreement was developed as a cooperative response to the history of waterconflict which has escalated in recent decades in Washington State. The Agreement broughttogether diverse groups with major interests in water resources including State, Tribal andlocal governments, agriculture, business, environmentalists, recreationists and fishermen.The Agreement emphasizes cooperative water resource planning on a regional basis as analternative to litigation for scarce water resources. Legislation passed the same yearsupported the cooperative planning effort, and provided funding for two pilot areas todevelop regional water use plans.

The Chelan Agreement also established the Water Resources Forum, a 24-member bodycomposed of the aforementioned eight groups, which would act as a sounding board on Statewater issues for the Department of Ecology. Additionally, the Forum was charged withselecting the pilot planning areas, establishing guidelines for the development of the regionalplans, and monitoring their progress.


14.2 Description and Analysis of the Pilot Process

During the Spring of 1991, the Water Resources Forum and the Department of Ecologysolicited nominations of watersheds for the two pilot planning projects, one on the west sideand one on the east side of the State. Over 30 watersheds were nominated. The selection wasnarrowed by placing emphasis on those watersheds which had substantial support from bothTribal and local governments. Based on the Forum's recommendation, Ecology designatedthe Methow as the eastern project, and the Dungeness-Quilcene for the western pilot project.

Nomination and Selection of the DQ ProjectThe Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe originally nominated the Dungenesswatershed as one of the pilot projects, and was supported by ClallamCounty. The project boundary was eventually expanded by the WaterResources Forum and Ecology to encompass the entire northeasternOlympic Peninsula, including the Quilcene watershed. The intention wasto expand the breadth of water use issues including irrigation, municipaland industrial use, and surface-groundwater interaction. It was also anattempt to test the process in a multi-governmental setting. The projectinvolves local and Tribal governmental entities consisting of Clallam andJefferson Counties, the Cities of Sequim and Port Townsend, theJamestown and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes, and the Clallam andJefferson Public Utility Districts, the State Department of Ecology, andDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, as well as Federal agencies includingUSFWS, USDA Forest Service, Olympic National Park, and USGS. Dueto a lack of information on the Chelan process, it took several months toundertake the education on the Chelan Agreement which was necessary toconvince all of the local and Tribal governments to participate.

Regional Planning Group FormationLocal, State, and Tribal governments began meeting in 1991. Governmentresolutions to participate were passed, government caucuses were formed,the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe was selected as the interim CoordinatingEntity, and the interim facilitator, Emmett Fiske was hired.



An initial public information meeting moderated by the Northwest Renewable Resource Centerwas held at Carrie Blake Park, Sequim, on October 15, 1991. Attendees were informed about thepilot project and were asked to sign up if interested in participating on a caucus. Based on thatmeeting, local mailing lists, and word-of mouth, a new mailing list was developed of all personsinterested in participating. Individual caucus formation meetings occurred in the early Spring of1991. In some cases, the Coordinating Entity was needed to convene caucus meetings tofacilitate formation of the caucus, representative selection, and development of caucus goals. Inother caucuses the Coordinating Entity attended to answer questions or was not involved at all.

In March of 1992 the next public meetings to introduce the project were held at the JamestownS'Klallam Tribal Community Center. Interim caucus leaders were chosen to be contacts for theformation of the citizen caucuses. Each of the final eight caucuses chose two delegates and twoalternates to serve on the Regional Planning Group.

At the first two public meetings, RPG structure and composition was discussed. Many potentialparticipants were very concerned about the definition contained in the Regional PlanningGuidelines which states:

In cases where consensus is not possible, decisions will be madeby a consensus of the government caucuses and a majority of theinterest group caucuses. Minority reports, if prepared, shall beincluded in the plan document.

It was during this early formation period that the participants involved decided to adopt theWater Resources Forum's definition of consensus:

Consensus is defined as no negative votes, with abstentions allowed. If no consensus isreached, such will be noted and all the information generated during the process will becollected and made available to all participants.

Early discussions also included development of caucus goals, adoption of RPG groundrules (seeChapter 12) and general procedures, the role of Federal agencies and ground-water users in theproject, and review of the Regional Planning Guidelines.



Early Regional Planning Group ActivitiesIn May 1992 the Regional Planning Group began meeting every third Tuesday at theTribal Center. Emmett Fiske from Washington State University facilitated the early RPGmeetings. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe's role as the Coordinating Entity wasformalized by the RPG. Early projects included creation of a DQ Project budget,planning of educational field trips for the RPG, and beginning the Scoping process. InSummer and Fall of 1992 the RPG formed work committees including theConservation/Education, Budget, Advisory/Facilitation, Technical, and the ScopingCommittees. For more information on the details of committee activities, refer to Chapter13: RPG Committees.

In August 1992 Community Design Exchange was hired to facilitate Regional PlanningGroup meetings through June 1993, per Advisory Committee recommendations. TheCoordinating Entity hired Linda Newberry as DQ Project Coordinator and Cindy Youngas DQ Project Assistant.

The RPG approved the Scoping Document prepared by the Scoping Committee inJanuary 1993, and it was approved by Ecology shortly after submittal. In Winter andSpring 1993 the RPG began early issue discussions primarily through a series ofeducational field trips, presentations, and "Focus Session" informational work shops,intended to bring all of the RPG members to a common level of understanding about thewater resource issues.

Two new positions were added to the DQ Project Staff. Linn Clark was hired as DataManagement staff and Cindy Young was promoted to the Research Support position.These two new positions were created to assist the ongoing Technical Committee effortsto prepare information for RPG discussions and policy/recommendation formulation. Thenew positions allowed the coordination of technical consultants, development of theTribe's GIS, compilation and maintenance of the Water Resources Library, technicalsupport for work groups, and additional staff to compile the DQ Plan. Nancy Kovach washired to fill the Project Assistant position.



The Regional Planning Group approved a proposal by the Education Committee to fundseveral existing educational programs for school kids and the general public. For a moredetailed description of the projects, refer to Appendix C: DQ Water Resources EducationPlan. A series of technical studies were funded Spring 1993 based on a proposal by theTechnical Committee. The studies were completed in the summer of 1993 and thefindings presented to the RPG, see Chapter 9: Technical Support.

FundingIn June 1993, at the end of the State fiscal biennium, the original funding from theLegislature was approximately two-thirds spent and the planning was only nowbeginning. The Legislature allowed $200,000 of the unspent funds to be carried over intothe following fiscal year. At this point in the process, the Coordinating Entity met withthe Advisory and Budget Committees to decide how the remaining funds should be usedto best complete the project. It was decided that the work should continue full speedahead until June 1994, rather than spreading the funds out until June 1995, and to use thefunds primarily for staff support, rather than facilitation or additional technical studies.

Creation of the PlanThe RPG temporarily suspended regular RPG meetings in July 1993, in order to meetweekly in County Work Groups to focus on specific issues. A special workshop inSeptember 1993 by facilitators Bob Ness and Katherine Baril on collaborative problemsolving in a consensus process was intended to give RPG members new skills to beginforming recommendations. The weekly County Work Group meetings were continueduntil May 1994 with formal RPG meetings every two months. Work Groups discussedspecific topics each week.

In December 1993, staff compiled early problem definitions, issues of concern, andrecommendations into a "straw man" preliminary draft plan. Work Groups then focusedon revising the recommendations. Staff prepared a semi-final draft plan in April anddistributed it to RPG members, other active participants and to public libraries. May wasdedicated to working out the last few "fatal flaws" which might prevent caucus support ofthe Plan as a whole. The final Plan was finished June 30, 1994.



The Regional Planning Group sees the DQ Water Resource Management Plan as aresource for on-going planning rather than a one-time plan "written in stone." Manyelements of the Plan will require periodic re-evaluation. Also, many issues were neverfully addressed. Implementation, in particular, is a major portion of the Plan which willrequire a continuing dialog between participating groups and agencies. See Chapter 8:Implementation Strategies.



Pilot Process Analysis IntroductionOver-all, the Dungeness-Quilcene planning process has been a positive one. With greatefforts extended by all parties involved, progress has been made. Some great steps have beentaken, and others, though very small, open the door to future opportunities, wise choices andbetter management of the water resources. Paraphrasing what one planning member said,this is only the first step towards effective management of the resources. It is a good one, apositive one, and one which may be modeled by other regional planning efforts in the future.

Figure 14.1: Early Depiction of RPG Process



As a State pilot project, there are many lessons to be learned, and the DQ planning groupand staff hope that these messages will be listened to carefully. It is a long, hard road,with many obstacles, but it still appears to be one of the best ways to include all parties ina community-based planning effort. The local community took on the responsibility oflooking at their resources and attempting to plan for them, and the DQ Plan andfollow-up implementation is the result.

The perspectives presented in the Chapter are divided in the following way: CoordinatingEntity, Staff, and RPG/Caucus Members.

Coordinating Entity PerspectiveThe following was contributed by Ann Seiter, Natural Resources Director, JamestownS'Klallam Tribe.

1. IntroductionThe Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Project provided a reasonable test of theChelan process in a multi-governmental, multiissue setting. The major goals of theChelan Agreement were addressed within the regional project, and regional planningguidelines were followed. The Plan has produced many substantive results, includingvaluable technical information, clearly recommended courses of action in watermanagement, and positive relationships among water users, citizens and agencies.Community commitment to the project has been enormous, including in-kind servicesfrom Federal, State, and local agencies and Tribes, and invaluable contributions frominterested and skilled citizens.

Although the following summary of problems or questions encountered,recommendations and observations may be redundant to staff and caucus perspectives,the Tribe as Coordinating Entity sees the following as the most relevant to futureprocesses.

2. Selection of Coordinating EntityEarly phases of the project took a long time due to the need to educate all parties beforethey could participate, including local government and



the caucuses. Under Chelan, no Coordinating Entity can be selected until the RPG isformed.

Recommendations/Observations:• Coordinating Entity should be chosen by the participating governments (State, Tribal,

local).• Initial scoping of the project should be done as a separate process from the plan

development.• The desire of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe to be the Coordinating Entity may have

slowed the process for a few months due to the need to build trust. However webelieve that we have adequately demonstrated Tribal capability to carry out this role.

3. Government Participation ProcessThe Chelan Agreement does not specify course of action if one of the participatinggovernments says no.

Recommendations/Observations:• Process should allow for a mechanism for a government to opt out if they so choose

(abstention from process). Participating governments, including those abstaining,should be able to specify what issues and/or geographic areas can still be addressedwithout total participation. However, active opposition by a participating governmentwould make planning impossible.

4. Caucus Formation and RepresentationSome caucuses had difficulty in determining who should be their representative. Therewere many complaints about caucus representatives and no means to address problem.

Recommendations/Observations:• If caucuses cannot choose own representatives, Coordinating Entity or a panel of 3

governments should be able to do so.• Representatives should be approved or removed by a panel of the 3

governments..-Also see staff suggestions on this issue.• Financial support for all caucuses is necessary, even beyond postage, mileage and

phone, and should include a stipend of some kind to allow professionals to participate.



5. BoundariesThe project expansion to include both the Dungeness and Quilcene watersheds increasedthe project complexity enormously. These watersheds were too different, with differentwater resource issues and levels of readiness.

Recommendations/Observations:• Planning areas should be defined into more cohesive units or broken into smaller

units as early as possible in the scoping and planning process.

6.ConsensusConsensus is slow by nature. The group chose to attempt full consensus rather than theChelan decision-making structure.

RecommendationslObservations:• Stick to the Chelan model of decision-making.• Use smaller work groups.

7. Scoping IssuesPlanning effort was complicated by the linkage to other related processes such as GMAand PSWQA planning. Additionally, the group spent considerable time on administrativeissues and process issues until two thirds through the project.

Recommendations/Observations:• Important to build on work which has been done in other processes without being

redundant. Consult regularly with, or get representatives who have familiarity withthese other processes.

• Regional planning guidelines should narrow the focus of Chelan projects to some keyissues so that the group can be more focused.

• An advisory/budget work group should be formed immediately to addressadministrative and process issues, so that the RPG can focus on substantive issues.The RPG should not be involved in administrative and budgetary decisions as it takesup valuable planning time -- leave this to the Coordinating Entity with input from theadvisory group and Ecology.



• An analysis of available technical information was needed earlier in the process tohelp frame the issues and identify information gaps.

8. Unclear ImplementationAlthough the plan has managed to identify some actions which can be achieved under theinitiative of the participants, funding sources to implement some of the plan elements areunclear.

Recommendations/Observations:• Amend CCWF to indicate that water quantity projects are clearly eligible as well as

quality, subject to an approved plan.• Some financial resources should be reserved for project coordination after plan

completion. We need another year of staff time to put some recommendations inplace, prepare financial packages for the various components, and continue publiceducation.

• Ecology must have the resources to implement the Plan. This was one of the goals inChelan.

9. Uncertain LawThe Legal ground changes continually during the planning. Many RPG members werefrustrated that their efforts were potentially wasted due to changes in legal interpretationsor proposed legislation.

RecommendationsfObservations:• Regional planning groups need assurance that their planning effort is supported

through recognition in the Legislature.



Staff PerspectiveThe following was contributed by DQ staff members Linda Newberry, ProjectCoordinator, Linn Clark, Data Management Staff, and Cindy Young, Research SupportStaff. Much of it is based on RPG input throughout the planning period.

1. IntroductionThe issues, as in all basins, are complex, not easily solved, and their resolution is vital toprotect the water resources, allow future growth which is coming to the peninsulawhether planned for or not, and to maintain the high quality of life that we are blessedwith on the Olympic peninsula. Staff does not want to indicate that we know all there isto know about how to do basin planning on this scale, but these valuable lessons havebeen learned, and may be critical for future basinplanners to understand.

Most of the lessons have to do with the fact that this is not a legal process, rather it is ahuman process. The needs of the humans involved, whether they are from governments,agencies, private landowners or interest groups or individuals must be considered, mustbe accommodated and must be respected in order to make the final plan meaningful,useful, and implementable. The expenditure of funds, in our case over $600,000 from theState added to local government inkind and direct funding, plus over 12,000 documentedvolunteer hours from non-governmental caucus members would have come to nothing ifthe human side of the project had been ignored.

On the whole, the staff found many positive results from the process. Some of theseresults include:

• Education of participants on water resources information, issues, and interests.• Collaboration between traditionally conflicting water interests. A notable example is

the Clallam Agricultural Caucus and the Tribal Caucus.• The completion of a Water Resources Management Plan to provide guidance for

future water management in the region.



There were also many aspects of the process which were not ideal and which may havecaused a lower quality final product:• A consistent level of frustration for all participants.• Quick criticism which discouraged risk-takers, innovative ideas, and long-term

thinking.• General inefficiency of the use of time at meetings.• Inconsistent caucus participation.• The use of the consensus process to create one-vote veto power.

.

The ambiguity of the Chelan Agreement and the Regional Planning Guidelines was botha source of frustration, and a provision for flexibility allowing local customizing of theprocess. There were many aspects of the Chelan Agreement process which wereinterpreted along the way. Rules were created as needed, along with structure, processand definitions of consensus. Even to the last consensus decision, some members theRPG defined the word "consensus" differently than others, leading to major conflict andmisunderstandings. A carefully developed and defined process at the beginning will helpfuture planning groups function much more smoothly and effectively, with lessfrustration for the members.

2. Trust and Respect IssuesMaybe the biggest one element which is needed, and which has the possibility ofdestroying a planning, or any kind of effort, is the ability to trust and treat with respectthe individuals involved in such an intense project. Initially groundrules were developedby which the RPG was supposed to function, and generally members have abided bythose rules. But simply writing rules does not mean that anyone will pay attention tothem. Certainly the educational efforts (field trips, focus sessions, etc.), helped the groupstart to develop trust in each other, and in the process. The Coordinating Entity and staffconstantly has to provide the right circumstances to allow the group to feel comfortableenough to treat each other with respect. This means everything from providingcomfortable meeting spaces, to keeping everyone well informed of all aspects of theproject, to providing mechanisms which will "force" individuals to pay attention to theneeds of the group.



There's nothing that will disturb the fragile "trusts" that have been built faster thanmisinformation, or information given to one party, and inadvertently not to others. Thingswhich are simple and reasonable quickly become complicated and unreasonable whenentities with very different goals and views are put together to do a major project. And byrespecting each other, we do not mean simply not yelling names at another party. Theshowing of respect or disrespect can come in many forms, from showing disrespect bycontinuously dominating conversations at meetings, or consistently coming late andholding up the start of meetings, to more blatant forms which are obvious to us all.Though the members may never finally embrace each other, or each caucus viewpoint, intaking on this project, they agreed to consider of equal importance each of the caucusesgoals and needs, and work towards a plan that will satisfy the whole.

A help towards building new trust and respect came unexpectedly through the dedicationof the support staff from the State and Federal agencies to the DQ. These agencies werewilling to free up time for employees with the expertise and background needed to helpthe planning members explore the resources and develop recommendations. Newrelationships between previously antagonistic parties were forged, while at the same time,vital information was given precisely when it was needed. Staff and many of the DQbelieve that this consistent participation throughout the planning process enabled thework to go much farther than it would have without that support.

3. Defining the Planning AreaBecause the local characteristics of the resources and issues are so complex, it isimportant to be careful about putting too many jurisdictions together. As originallyconceived the western pilot project was focused on the Dungeness watershed, under thesponsorship of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. Partly to make a "more interesting pilotproject" which would be different than the Methow project, the Quilcene watershed wasadded, to form the Dungeness-Quilcene project. While on a regional level it may seem tomake sense to do this sort of large-scale planning, in reality putting together two counties,two cities, and two watersheds with many sub-watersheds together creates many seriousproblems. In our case, Clallam County was much farther ahead in the GMA process. Inaddition, over 8 years of planning



had already occurred on the Dungeness River through previous watershed planningefforts. That means that not only more was known about the resources and issuesinvolved in Clallam County, relationships between the key parties --the Tribe, the Countyand the Agricultural Water Users -- had already been well established.

We added to that mix Jefferson County, which was lagging far behind in GMA planning,had relatively little experience in successfully sitting down with other vested interests toplan for its resources, resulting in a sometimes explosive atmosphere, and had little dataknown about water resources, except in the case of the City of Port Townsend's watersupply from the Quilcene rivers. The parties in Jefferson County have had to work extrahard to come together to successfully plan, and some feel time was lost during a too-shortplanning effort. While it was agreed that there were definitely regional issues of concern,and that over-all planning should seriously consider neighboring watersheds, the issuesturned out to be so County-specific, river-specific, and individual- or human-specific thatthe split into County work groups improved the planning effort immediately. Many feelthat this should have been done at the very beginning, and have voiced that far too muchtime was "wasted" trying to make an, at best uncomfortable fit, work.

4. Time and Resource IssuesWith all the best intentions, and all the best leadership and interpersonal skills, withoutsufficient resources and a long-enough timeline, a planning effort of this scale cannot besuccessfully accomplished. In our case, most of the first year was spent putting togetherthe "structure" of the project: choosing the Coordinating Entity, caucusmember selection,establishing budgets and timelines, and developing goals and objectives.

It was realized early in the process that in addition to educating the RPG about theresources and issues, knowing the status of the water resources, with the identification ofthe gaps in that knowledge, was critical. The Technical Committee developed and refineda comprehensive list of both long-term and short-term information needs for regionalwater resource planning, and the GIS and data management system developed for theplanning effort will be useful for future



regional use. DQ support for already established and successful educational activities inthe counties "spread the word" to the local community, and an educational plan whichwas written awaits future implementation.

All of these endeavors took a lot of time and resources. Without the information from thestudies, the RPG would have been basing recommendations on poorly understoodinformation, and sometimes faulty assumptions. Because the initial funding from theLegislature was for two years, an inordinate amount of time was spent worrying about,and trying to deal with the consequences of a too-short time to complete the plan.Sufficient time and resources, known from the beginning, would have alleviatedun-needed stress on the RPG, and allowed productive work to proceed more efficiently.

5. The Planning EnvironmentOne of the keys to success in the Chelan process is the creation of a constructiveatmosphere. The contentious history and complexity of water resource issues facingsociety requires growth in an understanding of needs and problems, and a willingness tothink beyond norms of the day.

In the DQ Project, the members of the RPG began collaborative problem solving afterworking together for over 18 months. A September, 1993 work shop by Katherine Bariland Bob Ness on consensus building, though late in the process, helped participantscommunicate constructively during on-going refinement of the recommendations. Boththe Jefferson and Clallam Work Groups showed great progress in resolving conflictsduring their year of intense work, though some conflict remained through to the lastmeetings.

Consensus decisions produced by cooperative planning and the atmosphere of trust arevery fragile. Either can be entirely destroyed by the cascade effect of relapses betweenconflicting interests. The general level of stress and frustration caused by habitualantagonism or seemingly petty conflicts was a hindrance to bold efforts by memberstrying to develop innovative solutions. While to some degree this may be an unavoidablepart of the process, staff agree that a better and easier process could be created by a morecareful selection of caucus



representation. This is imperative, to actively prevent the mistreatment of individuals andunnecessary frustration for those individuals taking risks. Participants must agree torespect other people's time, the finite funding resources, and the limited time available forplanning.

6. Caucus Formation and MaintenanceThe caucus structure is the backbone of the Chelan Agreement process. The differingview points brought be each member add valuable elements to the planning process. Eachcaucus must be a valid and functioning network of people to be effective in the spirit ofthe Chelan Agreement.

In the DQ Project, caucuses varied greatly in their size, representation, level of continuedparticipation, knowledge of resources, communication skills, caucus decision-makingstructure, and ability to function constructively. There was concern throughout theprocess as to whether all caucuses truly represented their supposed interests. Forexample, the Business Caucus and Fish Caucus each had very few members, and may nothave fully represented all of the concerns intended under the Chelan Agreement.

It is staff s view that each caucus should be responsible for proving to the other caucuses,and to the Coordinating Entity that it is fulfilling it's proper role in the process.

Each caucus should have:• At least seven active members (2 delegates, 2 alternates and 3 others) from diverse

backgrounds. If at any point in the process membership dwindles, the existing caucusmembers should actively recruit new or inactive members, although it is preferable tomaintain the same core group for the sake of the level of common educationalexperiences and relationships developed throughout the planning process.

• Regular communication between delegates and caucus members.• Regular communication between caucus members and other related organizations.• Meetings together at least once each month.



• Representation from interests outlined in the Chelan Agreement. If the caucus doesnot represent the intended interest, then the name of the caucus should be changed toreflect it's true interest.

• Delegates who represent the interest of the caucus adequately, and not just their ownconcerns.

• The willingness to operate in good faith and to work within the process.

7. Delegate Selection and ResponsibilitiesThe selection of caucus delegates is a crucial part of the planning process. Delegates mustbe able to spend a great amount of time at RPG meetings, committee meetings,communicating with other caucuses, and doing additional research and preparation.Delegates must possess leadership qualities, and while they should represent their caucusinterest, they should not be ruled by opinions of individual caucus members. It isdesirable to select delegates who are active community members, but they should notalready be overwhelmed with other commitments. Also, conflicts of interest whichinterfere with; A discussions, such as participation in pending lawsuits against otherparticipating agencies or individuals, should be considered in the selection, and at leastopenly acknowledged. Delegates should understand at the beginning, that as a planningparticipant they will be obligated to sign the "signature page" in the final Plan.

In the DQ Project, selection of delegates was left almost entirely up to the caucuses.However, staff would like to suggest that the Coordinating Entity, facilitator, staff, orsome other neutral party participate or approve the selection of delegates. Selection ofdelegates should be taken as seriously as the selection of staff or facilitation. Caucusesshould supply the Regional Planning Group with resumes and/or statements ofqualifications including information on:

• Proven ability to work constructively in a collaborative process.• The standing of the individual within caucus interests and as a community member.• The interest of the individual to learn about complex issues.• A willingness to be supportive of other delegates' efforts.

A limiting factor in the selection of delegates for interest groups was the volunteer statusof the delegate positions. Although delegates were



reimbursed for mileage, phone, and copying expenses, not every one was able tocontribute the immense amount of time required to participate as a delegate. This causedhardships for some of the many dedicated DQ delegates. Funding should be considered asan essential element in future regional planning effort. Funding to compensate delegatesfor the long hours of meetings would allow more professional, and perhaps morerepresentative individuals to participate in the process, and alleviate hardships on someparties.

Caucus delegates have the responsibility of consistent participation. It was very destructiveand discouraging to have delegates who had not been involved in discussions to opposedecisions in the last hour. Recommendations to avoid this problem include:• Voting privileges for delegates should be lost after missing 3 meetings in a row;• Voting privileges should be reinstated at the third meeting after a delegate has attended

2 meetings in a row.

8. Delegate ReviewThe Coordinating Entity, facilitation, staff, or a committee of RPG members should reviewall delegate performances quarterly, or at least semi-annually. Delegates should enter theprocess knowing these evaluations will occur. These should include performance ofdelegate responsibilities to caucuses and contributions to the planning process. Staff, theCoordinating Entity, or a neutral party should keep records on complaints from otherdelegates for this purpose. If a delegate is thought to be breaking any groundrules or isseverely lacking as a representative, and does not show sufficient willingness to improve,the delegate should be replaced to prevent deterioration of the process. It would bepreferable to have the removal happen at the initiative of the caucus. However, if thecaucus fails to act, the Coordinating Entity should fill this role.

In the DQ Project, no review of delegates took place or formal record-keeping ofcomplaints to staff about delegate behavior, in part due to a reluctance by all members toname names and confront individuals. Also, there was concern that bringing replacementdelegates or caucus members up to speed would delay the process. However, a newdelegate did, in fact, join near the end of the process with no negative



effects. In retrospect, a higher standard applied to delegates, regardless of possiblereplacements, would have been beneficial to the process.

9. Coordinating Entity SelectionStaff feel that the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe was an ideal choice for the role ofCoordinating Entity for the Dungeness-Quilcene Project. The Tribal facilities for meetingspace and equipment, and office space and equipment were excellent. The Tribal Center'slocation was centrally located, making travel time to RPG meetings similar for bothClallam and Jefferson County participants -- about 30 to 40 minutes. The management atthe Tribe also encouraged staff to meet very high standard of quality for all projectactivities.

10. Regional Planning StaffIn the DQ Project, staff played an active role in the DQ Project. Hired by theCoordinating Entity, at the peak of planning activity there were four positions: ProjectCoordinator, Project Assistant, Research Support Staff, and Data Management Staff.Their activities included meeting preparation and coordination, process guidance,consultant management, information preparation, and the writing of the Plan.Miscellaneous duties were assigned to staff to fill in any gaps left by facilitation, theproject participants, and consultants.

Although originally it was hoped that a facilitation team would play an active role inon-going dispute resolution, keeping meetings on track, and guiding the process, thefacilitation generally lacked the skills, the energy, or the familiarity with the participantsand the issues to fill this role. Also, as more and more of the real work was done in small,frequent committee meetings, it became apparent that even when facilitation waseffective, the RPG could not afford professional facilitation in addition to staff for allmeetings. RPG member committee "chairs" were successful in guiding meetings to apoint. But the bulk of the responsibility for guiding the process and keeping meetings ontrack quickly fell to staff.

11. Defining Staff RolesA more defined role for staff would provide more effective meetings and leadership forthe RPG. It was often unclear to staff members how



strong a role to play. On one hand, RPG members expected staff to lead meetings, and onthe other hand, staff initiatives often were criticized.

Project CoordinatorThe Project Coordinator was responsible for the primary coordination of all activitiesduring the DQ planning process. This included hiring two positions, managing andcoordinating staff functions, working with the Coordinating Entity within the structure ofthe Tribe, and general management of the project. More specifically, the scope of workranged from interface with the public and media, to keeping meetings running smoothly(including, as it turned out, primary facilitation of meetings), to setting agendas,developing public meetings, developing and managing the budget with the CoordinatingEntity, to major work with DQ individuals and caucuses, to the designing and writing ofmuch of the DQ Plan. The last year of work entailed twice-weekly County work groupmeetings developing the draft Plan and working with the RPG members to re-write ituntil it met the needs of each caucus, while fitting within State and local governmentalguidelines.

Project AssistantThe Project Assistant took care of the unending list of details requiring immediateattention including setting up meetings, publicity, preparation of meeting notes, mailings,caucus reimbursement accounting, file maintenance, and photocopying. Having thissecretarial position allowed the other staff to attend to other important projects.

Research Support StaffThe Research Support Staff spent a considerable amount of time on various TechnicalCommittee activities including management of technical consultants/contracts andcompilation and maintenance of the DQ Water Resources Library, and acted as thegeneral technical support for the DQ. After the Technical Committee activities sloweddown, the position provided research support for committee meetings, and worked withthe Coordinator on the DQ Plan.



Data Management StaffThe Data Management job could be divided into three main sections: GIS, computersupport, and other technical support. The GIS work included setting up the hardware andsoftware, learning the system, collecting data, and producing maps and analyses. Thisincluded data sharing arrangements with local governments, PUD's, and State andFederal agencies, as well as interpretating data into formats usable by the RPG. Computerand technical support was mainly for the DQ staff, though support necessary for the DQcaucuses and volunteers was provided, especially at meetings. Other technical supportranged from setting up and operating electronic equipment (ie. the video camera), toproviding maps, literature, and educational materials. Because funding limitations causedthe Project Assistant to be eliminated for the last 6 months of the planning period, thedata management staff also helped with setting up meetings (including refreshments); oneof the planning members labeled her as responsible for the bits and bytes!

12. Information and Planning Water planning involves many complex issues andrequires a broad understanding of local hydrogeology, biology, human land uses andmany other related topics. It is difficult even to define the problems without thisknowledge.

There were two field trips at the beginning of the process, but most of the in-deptheducation of RPG and caucus members took place primarily after the Scoping Documentwas completed. General-topic "focus sessions" were held for the full RPG on subjectssuch as the principles of ground water, fisheries issues, agriculture issues and forestpractices. RPG members and outside experts presented information on the topics andanswered questions from the audience. While these were very popular at first, the list oftopics needing coverage was never-ending, and interest by both attendants and organizersof the focus sessions seemed to wane after several months. Participants at that time had toattend frequent RPG meetings, many on-going committee meetings, technical consultantpresentations, and caucus meetings in addition to the focus sessions. Also, manyattendants complained that



the general nature of the presentation often did not adequately address all issues relevantto specific areas within the project boundaries (though many of the sessions were veryissue-specific).

An example of the most successful use of "focus sessions" is series of very specializedfield trips and smaller ad-hoc work group meetings called to address Dungeness Riveraggradation issues. Experts and relevant agency representatives were invited to attend asparticipants and information resources, rather than as speakers. The group discussed thehistory and possible reasons for aggradation, types of gravel traps, fish habitat needs, andpermitting processes on the lower Dungeness River. The first beginnings ofrecommendations for the DQ Plan came from this series of meetings. These meetings,which combined information and solution-oriented brainstorming in dynamicdiscussions, served as a model for the County Work Group meetings.

RPG members should be exposed to both general information on a broad range of topicsearly on in the process, and in-depth information when the group is ready to beginproblem solving. The first six months of the process should be devoted solely to generaleducation, allowing RPG members time to focus on understanding the "big picture" ofwater resources, do outside research and homework, share their knowledge with caucusmembers, and discuss and refine the issues with other RPG members. During thisknowledge-building process, RPG members should also think of what additionalinformation will be needed for planning which staff can prepare, or hire consultants toprepare.

Ideally a prioritized list of issues would come out of this understanding of the "bigpicture;" then staff could begin to organize work groups on specific topics. The RPG didnot have consensus on the idea of prioritizing issues early in the scoping process. But inpractice, the issues with the highest priority were dealt with first, because RPG memberswere most motivated to define these problems and pull together appropriate people fordiscussions.

Research Support and Data Management Staff worked with the RPG for the last 18-20months of the project. Both the RPG and staff felt that it would have been helpful to havethe both the research staff and



data management position from the beginning, to begin early the long task of compilingwater resources information and data into a useful form for the planning group.

13. Planning WorkEarly County Work Group meetings tended to be general brainstorming meetings. Stafftranslated generalized ideas and miscellaneous comments into draft recommendations forthe December 1993 draft plan. Once the Work Groups had "recommendation language"to work with, meetings generally became more focused and productive. Full translationfrom brainstorming to recommendations took a good deal of work by both staff and theWork Groups, which often revisited revisited the recommendation several times. WorkGroup "word smithing" was extremely time-consuming and frustrating to group membersand staff, but seemed to be, for some, a necessary step towards full consensus on eachrecommendation. RPG inputs and suggestions were much easier for staff to compile, andsaved great amounts of Work Group time, if they were already somewhat thought-out andin "recommendation language."

The Recreation Caucus was to staff, an example of a very constructive caucus, whichtook responsibility for fulfilling their own goals and helping the RPG make progresstowards the creation of recommendations. The whole caucus participated in thepreparation a set of recreation recommendations which were brought to each County'sWork Groups. Recommendations which did not reach consensus were modified by theRecreation Caucus and brought back to the Work Groups for final approval. The WorkGroups seemed to appreciate having such well-thought-out recommendations to work on,and, although the Work Groups did make some substantive changes to the proposedrecommendations, the process was relatively painless and productive.

14. The Human Elements of Planning Consensus planning is a long, intensive processwhich demands extraordinary performance from participants. It is important to recognizeenvironmental factors which affect people's behavior and help people cope with thestresses of the process. Elements such as fatigue, nutrition, the feel of meeting spaces,and other factors should



be considered in the coordination of the planning process. The role of staff in the DQProject was, in part, to help the RPG members and other active participants keep their"sanity," health, and some measure of balance through the process.

The many, many meetings in this consensus process were unavoidable. The switch toCounty Work Groups to concentrate on each watershed with regularly scheduledmeetings (i.e. Monday and Tuesday nights) was successful, and the 5 PM to 7 PMtime-slot worked well as a compromise time between the schedules of people whoattended meetings as part of their jobs and those volunteers who had other day jobs.

RPG members and staff alike tolerated too much tardiness from meeting participants. Itwas recently estimated that by starting each meeting 15 minutes late (a conservativeestimate), a total of 24 hours of meeting time was wasted in the Jefferson County WorkGroup alone. Meetings often finished late, going as late as $:00 to 8:30 PM. At times itwas a great benefit to have a time limit on the room rental space in order to facilitatecoming to conclusions on issues.

Refreshments were an important part of keeping meetings civil, and tiding participantsover until their late supper. At the beginning of the process, refreshments were limited tocoffee and store-bought cookies. By the end of the process the fare expanded tovegetable cuttings, fruit, fruit juice, tea, and home-baked goods, mostly thanks to a fewgenerous individuals.

Meeting rooms should be large enough to avoid any sense of crowding. Other elementsto consider when selecting a room are adequate natural light, the quality of the air, andpast associations with the room (i.e. controversial, heated meetings held in the room).(There did seem to be a connection between disastrous meetings and full moons...)

15. Staff-Perspective ConclusionsPeople come together in community or regional planning efforts for various reasons: 1)it's their jobs to be there; 2) they care enough about their resources or special interests toinvest their time in the effort; or 3) they have knowledge or expertise that is needed. We



participate in these efforts for other reasons too which have to do with empowerment andfulfillment. Whether through continuing education about our environment and the needsof our communities, or by developing personal relationships with others, or by being ableto help craft a plan which will provide for the water resources and the environment wework and live in for the next twenty years, our participation in projects such as theDungeness- Quilcene and the Methow provides the opportunity to both educate andempower us, while expanding our horizons.

The intelligence, diligence, good-humor and dedication of many of the RPG has inspiredstaff throughout the process, and taught us all a great deal. It is hoped that future planningefforts will take into consideration the above ideas, so that more meaningful, and lessfrustrating work can be accomplished in this much-needed area of natural resourcesplanning.



Caucus PerspectivesThe following section was compiled by staff from a variety of sources. Some commentsrepresent caucus points of view and others represent individual opinions, and these wereidentified whenever the difference was clear-cut. The primary source is from a May 1994RPG survey on the process.l Not all members responded to the survey and so not allcaucuses are represented. The Environmental Caucus submitted comments directly toEcology and the Water Resources Forum. Other comments were pulled from letters to theProject Coordinator.

In the May 1994 RPG survey, delegates were given a list of different aspects of the projectunder the categories of project structure, budget, planning work, and adherence to groundrules, and asked to rate them as poor (1), fair (2), good (3), very good (4), or excellent (5). Inaddition to rating different aspects of the project, many respondents included writtencomments. A total of nine surveys were returned, representing Local Government (2responses), Tribal Government (2 responses), Fisheries (2 responses), Agriculture (1response), and Recreation (2 responses) caucuses.

1. General ProcessOn the May 1994 RPG survey, all of the respondents rated the effectiveness of the overallprocess good (3) or very good (4), except one who rated it fair (2). Steve Moddemeyer,Tribal Caucus, felt that "Good solid progress was made toward goals." Also, most of thesurvey respondents rated the overall quality of the final plan very good (4) and a few rated itgood (3). Marguerite Glover, Business Caucus, wrote in a letter to Linda Newberry:

"The Business Caucus feels that this pilot project and the Plan is of importance to the communities within theDungeness and Quilcene watersheds. Water is vital to all life, whether it be human, plant, or animal. Justlike the fact that people of such diverse interests sat down, talked, tried to understand and accommodateeach other, is noteworthy. Within our given time, we were not able to solve all issues, nor to conduct allstudies. More needs to be done. We feel certain that, somehow, the five-year study of groundwaterresources and hydrology will be

1 The DQ RPG survey was based in part on the Methow Pilot RPG survey by Bob andMarianne Archey, Roundtable Associates.



accomplished. This will guide further implementation of the Plan. The Plan is a place tostart. It is a good beginning."

Walt Blendermann, Fisheries Caucus, wrote:"I was pleased that we were able to accomplish so much in the way of water conservationand awareness. We felt that the technical committee was particularly effective inidentifying and working the right issues. The ability to identify pink salmon pools andactually implement habitat work in the river south of the 101 bridge with everyonecooperating was wonderful. The ability to stay within the scope of the Chelan Agreementwas difficult, but attainable. We had a distinct feeling that at times it was ourselves,Tribal representatives, and irrigation facing a vocal real estate, business, and localgovernment pro-development group."

Julie McCulloch, Local Government Caucus, wrote:"From the Local Government perspective, the process was a step forward, although, as isoften the case with government in general and public processes in particular, progress canbe painfully slow and feel like two steps forward, one step back -- played over and overagain. The time commitment was intense, especially for organizations and individualsalready over-loaded with commitments. The effectiveness of the process cannot properlybe measured at the current time because it is only the foundation of the work ahead. Thecapacity for implementation will be the true measure. The ability of all levels ofgovernment and agencies to work together and coordinate efforts without duplication ispart of the over-all challenge of government in the 1999s and is critical for governmenteffectiveness. Overall, the effort has been worthwhile as a viable starting point towardsolutions for an extremely complex set of problems."

"...In spite of [consensus training and disappointing facilitation] slowdowns, relationshipswere built which will further the work. The technical studies are useful, and the progressmade in assembling data on the DQ planning area is a significant step forward. It will beimportant to the future of this work that the equipment and resource base which existswith the Coordinating Entity be made available for continuing water resource planning.The commitment of all of the individuals involved is really what generated the successeswe have achieved, and it is the brightest hope for the continuing challenges ahead forwater resource planning."



Representing his own view, Steve Moddemeyer wrote: "We could have achieved greatthings and will settle for achieving something. A good overall effort, although itslong-term benefits are still emerging."

2. Early ProcessThe process and structure for caucus formation was called good (3) by nearly all RPGrespondents to the May 1994 survey, although one each called it very good (4) and fair(2). All of the respondents called the staff/facilitation selection process very good (4),except for the Agriculture Caucus who felt the facilitation selection process was poor (1).RPG respondents rated delegate selection from fair (2) to very good (4), with the majoritycalling it good (3). The Recreation Caucus commented that the selection was "excellentin some cases."

Many of the comments received by staff included suggestions for getting the process offto a better start. Carol Volk, Recreation Caucus, wrote:

"Having Linda [Newberry] (Project Coordinator) from the beginning ornear-beginning would have been desirable. Seems like we did a lot of "flailingaround" before she came on-board. Ditto also Nancy [Kovach, Project Assistant] andCindy [Young, Research Staff]."

Bob Wheeler, Local Government Caucus, representing his own view, wrote:"The early project completion time restriction hurt rather than helped. My guess isthat many of us will still be at it 5 years from now."

Virginia Clark, Recreation Caucus, representing her own views wrote:"[There needs to be] administration planning and coordination by Ecology so futureRPG projects can get off to a faster start. This includes getting staff and facilitatorshired and available. Perhaps Ecology should assign a person to the project for the firsttwo months to get it started."

Bob Wheeler, Local Government Caucus, representing his own view, wrote:"I think the group should have worked to achieve some early 'successes.` We shouldhave agreed to focus on a few projects that could be accomplished quickly. Withgood support, both guidance and facilitation, we could have accomplished them.Early successes and celebration of



them would have helped us all, and guided us through the more difficult problems that camenext."

"...I think the fact that we didn't focus immediately and closely with the Jefferson CountyCoordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) wasted a lot of time, effort, and resources for bothprojects. There are too many close ties between the Pilot and the CWSP to not have pursuedthis closer."

3. Scope of WorkFrom a September RPG exercise on the pilot process, an opinion was recorded on the easel:"The distinct difference between the 2 major watersheds and the 2 sets of jurisdictions made jointplanning difficult. Limit future planning efforts to one watershed or area with significantcommonalties."

Carol Volk, Recreation Caucus, wrote:"The DQ Project was wastefully slow to focus because we did not have a clear initial outlineof the Project scope and priorities. Early-on, participants must define the scope of the Project.In the Jefferson County workgroup, for instance, there are individuals who feel our work mustbe focused largely on instream flows, and other individuals who feel our work mustencompass every single detail of water management in the County! This difference of opinionhas been a frustration for many participants! If participants can not agree on the scope of theirwork, we should, early-on, at least agree to prioritization of our work. Prioritization wouldhelp us do the most important things first. Then, if we had time, we could address the lessimportant issues. The extremely wide scope has at times kept us from addressing the mostbasic of issues."

Ann Seiter, Tribal Caucus, wrote:"Focus the issues: In my mind the Chelan Agreement was clearly intended to primarilyaddress water quantity issues, while recognizing that quality is an important component.Many peripheral issues were dragged into the process which precluded us from coming togrips with water quantity, instream flows and water supply and demand at a depth which wasoriginally intended. While everything is related to water at some level, this process was notintended to solve all regional issues on growth management, water quality, wildlife habitatand flood control. Alternative funding sources and processes exist to address these, even ifyou don't like the results. Until the State comes up with a more comprehensive way of



doing watershed planning to address the entire range of issues, future 'Chelan' projects shouldbe more focused."

4. Project StructureNearly all respondents to the May 1994 survey called the effectiveness of the caucus structuregood (3), although one called it very good (4) and the Fisheries Caucus commented that there is a"wide range between different caucuses." The effectiveness of the RPG structure ranged betweenfair (2) and very good (4).

Bob Wheeler, Local Government Caucus, representing his own views, wrote in December 1993:"I felt from the beginning that two separate groups, the Quilcene/East Jefferson andDungeness/Clallam regions, should have formed with a loose tie to coordinate studies andefforts. It was just too big of a group to bring together easily. I think the split approach andthen work to coordinate common issues would have been a much better approach."

5. Committee StructureA comment written at an October 1993 brainstorm session on process said: Much of the real"work" in the DQ Project has taken place in Committees, topic work group meetings, by-Countywork groups, and other informal work groups. Work on specific issues outside formal RPGstructure has been a necessary part of the process. Respondents from the May 1994 survey ratedthe effectiveness of the sub-committee structure between good (3) and excellent (5), the majorityrating it very good (4).

Bob Wheeler, Local Government Caucus, representing his own views, wrote in December 1993:"I have a problem always falling into the traditional 'committee' routines. I think we shouldhave learned about optional organizational structures and made conscious choices on what wewanted to do up front."

6. FacilitationFacilitation was obviously a point of frustration for many RPG members throughout the process.All four Tribal and Local Government respondents rated the effectiveness of facilitation as poor(1). Both Recreation respondents, one Fisheries, and Agriculture respondents rated facilitation asgood (3). One Fisheries respondent



rated facilitation as excellent (5). Comments attached to the ratings included "too costly"and "varied by facilitator." The number of comments regarding facilitation shows that itwas very important to the RPG members.

Carol Volk, Recreation Caucus, wrote in March 1994: "Good facilitation would be veryhelpful! Often whole, valuable discussions have been 'lost' because a single participantredirected the flow of thought. There have been many instances, at least in the JeffCogroup, where a facilitator could have kept us on track, to the completion of adiscussion. It is difficult, as a member of the discussion, to recognize and/or re-directstray talk. At the least, each meeting should be opened with a clear description ofintended results. The agenda should set maximum time available for each agenda item.Good facilitation would have made the process fairer. The power of consensus hasbeen tremendous, and at time we cowered to it. One person from one caucus, forinstance, objects to the word 'prioritization,' ---and that effectively takes care of anyprioritization we may have been able to accomplish."

Bob Wheeler, Local Government Caucus, representing his own views, wrote inDecember 1993:

"Good facilitation is crucial to the success of this type of project and I feel we wereunlucky here. It just seemed that we could not get good facilitation, with the exceptionof when Katherine Bard facilitated one session. That was the first time people actuallytalked with each other."

Ann Seiter, Tribal Caucus, wrote on Facilitation:"This was probably the biggest waste of funds in the project. Facilitation is a valuableelement in these processes, but was not helpful here. The benefit was that the grouplearned largely to facilitate itself, but it was very hard on staff. In the future, afacilitator must be knowledgeable about the substantive issues as well as understandgroup dynamics, and must be able to work individually with caucuses to negotiatecompromises,"

Steve Moddemeyer, Tribal Caucus, wrote in May 1994: "For the NW's leadership inconsensus processes, we still seem to have a severely restricted pool of facilitators."

Julie McCulloch, Local Government Caucus, wrote in May 1994:



"The facilitation was a big disappointment, especially with 2 attempts, but it made usall more self-sufficient."

7. Process WorkWhen asked to rate the RPG's understanding of collaborative problem solving andconsensus, respondents to the May 1994 RPG surveys were mostly split between fair (2)and good (3). One respondent rated it as very good (4) but followed with the qualifyingcomment that it "varies by caucus." Funding for fulfillment of RPGeducation/information needs was rated very good (4) by most respondents.

Bob Wheeler, Local Government Caucus, representing his own views, wrote inDecember 1993:

"There was no early training on consensus and collaboration skills which hurt us a lot.Since the whole process really hinges on trust, consensus, and collaboration, it isimperative for future projects to recognize this up front and deal with it early andoften. I would equate this to a new process that is really taking hold in theconstruction industry and a process that the City of Port Townsend has successfullyused in several projects. It is called 'Partnering.' It is a process that brings all thedifferent factions together early on in the process to understand that if one party is notsuccessful, then all parties fail. A group exercise was used at one of the City'sPartnering workshops that I think would have helped us here. Each group (caucus)met and wrote out their goals, desires, and needs. Each group also wrote out whatthey thought the other groups goals, desires, or needs would be. Through groupdiscussions in comparing these lists, a lot of understanding, teamwork, and consensusof goals was realized."

Julie McCulloch, Local Government Caucus, wrote:"As we have all discussed many times, early training in consensus process with acapable teacher would have been extremely valuable. In reality, I recognize that sucha person (teacher) is hard to find and we are blazing new trails."

On the issues of process work versus planning work, Roger Short, Agriculture Caucus, wrotethat the "RPG spent too much time on process rather than trying to solve problems."

Ann Seiter, Tribal Caucus, wrote:"While some individuals felt the process is the product, I believe that the opportunityfor substantive decisions was often wasted due to endless



discussions on the process. More structure in the regional planning guidelines wouldhelp, although it would remove some local flexibility. Many RPG members felt thatwe needed consensus training at the onset. I am not opposed to this concept, butdoubt its value. Consensus training in the abstract is just that (abstract). More fieldtrips or practical projects would teach consensus in a real sense. And all the trainingin the world will not change those individuals who fail to listen or offer solutions."

8. RPG Education and InformationRespondents to the May 1994 RPG survey rated the availability of information as eithervery good (4) or excellent (5). Also, the adequacy of information provided to the RPGwas mostly rated as very good (4), in addition to a couple of good and excellent ratings.Roger Short, Agriculture Caucus, wrote: "I enjoyed all of the focus sessions." Fundingfor fulfillment of RPG education and information needs was rated as very good (4) byfive respondents, and one each for excellent (5), good (3), and fair (2) with the commentthat we "needed a consensus workshop."

Carol Volk, Recreation Caucus, wrote in March 1994:"The watershed tours and focus sessions -- largely organized by volunteers -- wereinvaluable in getting to know the watersheds and each other ....The DQ TechnicalCommittee has provided the RPG with technical information so we can carry onintelligent discussions with each other. Concentrating on this technical informationearly. in the process is important."

9. Planning WorkWhen asked to rate both the effectiveness of RPG meetings and use of time at meetingsin general, respondents varied from poor (1) to very good (4), with a majority havingselected fair (2). Ratings on the planning work's success in meeting schedules andtimelines varied from fair (2) to very good (4). Achievement of the orderly and openmeetings groundrule was split between good (3) and excellent (5), with one rating of verygood (4). Ratings of staff write-ups of RPG discussions were evenly split between verygood (4) and excellent (5). Regarding the groundrule on encouraging group creativity andflexibility, RPG members rated it either good (3), or very good (4), with a slight majoritycalling it "good." An additional comment was made



by the Fisheries Caucus that "sometimes, [there was] a bit too much 'flex!"'

Bob Wheeler, Local Government Caucus, representing his own view, wrote in December1993:

"This project has only moved as far as it did because individuals and sometimescaucuses, were willing to take risks. The general group approach to this tended to benegative when a risk was taken. I think the group attitude should be positive torisk-taking, even if in the end the idea changes or drops out. Tied in with risk-taking isthe need for some flexibility and allowing for 'mistakes' to be made. There is no 'set'pattern as to how to do this type of project, so flexibility and mistake-making aregoing to happen and are actually necessary learning steps toward ultimate success of aproject of this type."

Roger Short, Agriculture Caucus, wrote:"The group spent too much time 'word smithing' I think that should be left to staff."

Ann Seiter, Tribal Caucus, representing her individual point of view, wrote:"I'm not certain that I would recommend this exact structure to the Tribe again forfuture watershed planning. While it is good in providing recognition for tribes asgovernments, and has excellent opportunity for public participation, it is a time sinkunless the caucuses all send good representatives who are willing to workconstructively on a defined range of issues."

10. Use of ConsensusWhen asked to rate the RPG use of consensus in adherence to the original groundrules, surveyrespondents to the May 1994 RPG varied from fair (2) to very good (4). RPG success atachieving consensus in planning work was also rated from fair (2) to very good (4).

Carol Volk, Recreation Caucus, wrote in March 1994:"Following the definition of 'consensus' as outlined in the Chelan Agreement may havegiven us more flexibility than the more restrictive definition the RPG adopted."

Carol Volk, representing her own views, added in May:"Since Draft #2 has been available, we have especially felt the power of our restrictivedefinition of 'consensus' The RPG definition of consensus



has led to minority rule -- which could have been prevented by adopting the Chelandefinition of consensus."

Ann Seiter, Tribal Caucus, wrote in May 1994:"We should have held to the Chelan Agreement decision-making structure. It was notappropriate for one caucus to continually be able to oppose recommendations,particularly when their objections were not clear."

Virginia Clark, Recreation Caucus, wrote:"Stick to the Chelan Agreement definition of consensus. We had minority rule, not areal planning process, on many occasions in the RPG general meetings. Need a way tolevel the playing field so members with disparate agendas do not waste meeting timeand play dictator."

11. GoalsAchievement of and adherence to goals includes Caucus goals, RPG goals, and ChelanAgreement goals (see Chapter 11: Goals and Objectives). Regarding adherence to ChelanAgreement goals and issues, respondents to the May 1994 survey were spread betweenfair (2), good (3), very good (4), and excellent (5). The Fisheries Caucus commented thatthe adherence was "thin on implementation details." Regarding achievement of RPGgoals, respondents were spread between fair (2), good (3), and very good (4), with aslight majority calling it "good." RPG respondents to the May 1994 survey ratedachievement of caucus goals somewhat evenly between fair (2), good (3), and very good(4).

Dana Roberts, Fisheries Caucus, wrote in May 1994:"My opinions on this Question [Caucus view point] aren't too solid; having joinedFish Caucus half-way through the game, I'm unsure of what our Caucus's initial goalswere. That said, it seems as if we did get considerable acceptance of our views andurgings. However, along the way, Fish Caucus did lose the participation of astrong-willed proponent, due in good part to medical necessity. Had his time allowed,we may not have been able to conclude as I just did in my second sentence in thisparagraph."



Ann Seiter, Tribal Caucus, wrote:"The project generally met caucus goals of 1) working towards a net gain ofproductive fish habitat; and 2) demonstrating tribal leadership and a cooperative rolein the community. The Tribe remains concerned over the lack of certainty that thePlan will actually be implemented, and the lack of binding agreements for futurewater use in times of shortage and in the face of significant growth and transitionfrom agriculture. If the major implementing parties (Water Users, Ecology, Countyand Tribe) cannot deliver on these actions, we are back to square one. However, theTribe recognizes the strength of the Plan in that we do not need 100% cooperation toachieve positive results, the gains are immediate, and implementation can be largelyachieved through local efforts and is not completely dependent on outside funding oragency action."

12. Delegate and Caucus ParticipationRPG respondents to the May 1994 survey called the commitment of participants to the planningprocess fair (2), good (3), very good (4), and a majority called it excellent (5). Regarding thecommitment of participants to implementation, RPG members called it fair (2), good (3),unknown, and a slight majority called it excellent (5). Responses to the question of adherence tothe RPG groundrule on responsible representation by delegates varied from fair (2) to excellent(5), with a majority calling it very good (4). A comment was made by the Tribal Caucus that therepresentation was "generally good, with a few notable exceptions."

Several issues were addressed by comments from RPG members in the May 1994 survey: thegreat commitment of time by delegates required for participation and the adequacy of funding forcaucus participation. Carol Volk, Recreation Caucus, wrote in March 1994: "Participation is anissue. We had incredible, full-time volunteers on one hand, and empty RPG seats on the otherhand. We also had individuals who thought they were making an initial volunteer commitment ofabout-once-monthly meetings for two years. We are meeting on a weekly basis now, and theprocess will be closer to 2 112 years. This can (and has?) eliminated important individuals fromthe process when we most need them. Especially with the volunteer members of the RPG---it isdifficult to commit to full participation in a Process when the commitment needs change halfway through. Again, early-on, perhaps participants should agree to a particular level ofcommitment throughout the two-year process."



Roger Short, Agriculture Caucus, representing his own view, wrote:"It's not fair for me to devote the time that I have devoted without compensation. Notonly did I not get paid, but I had to hire an employee to replace me at the dairy forevery hour I was gone. Plus there were production losses."

Dana Roberts, Fisheries Caucus, wrote:"Wish I could speak accurately as to other caucuses; particular instance: Pope hasapparently laid back from JeffCo's Business Caucus, yet we know they're a major,major landowner-developer-forestry (=business) interest."

Steve Moddemeyer, Tribal Caucus, wrote:"Funding for Tribal participation was not sufficient. It forced other work of the Tribeto be held back due to time commitments of the DQ Process. I was unable tocontribute the time and energy necessary due to funding constraints of caucusrepresentation."

Ann Seiter, Tribal Caucus, representing her own individual point of view, wrote on theselection of representatives:

"The Chelan Agreement allows every caucus to select their representatives, a verydemocratic notion. However, more structure is needed to help caucuses through thisphase. Additionally, a mechanism is needed to allow the group to removerepresentatives that are obstacles to the process . This does not mean they should beremoved because they don't agree with substantive decisions, but individuals whocontinually waste the group's time, have personal problems or lack commitment to theproject's goals should be replaced. On the other hand, I don't know what we wouldhave done without the contributions from some of the caucus representatives,particularly agriculture and recreation."

13. RPG Member RelationshipsRPG relationships covered in this section include relationships within and between Caucuses,and between the RPG, the Coordinating Entity, and Staff. Regarding the interaction andcommunication within caucuses, a comment was made by the Tribal Caucus that it "varies a lotdepending on the caucus." The Local Government and Recreation Caucus respondents called theinter-caucus relationships very good (4) and the remaining caucuses called it either fair (2) orgood (3). The interactions and communications between caucuses are rated from fair (2) to verygood (4). The caucus interaction between the DQ Project



and the WRF was split fairly evenly between fair (2), good (3), and very good (4).

Adherence to the RPG groundrule on respect and good faith between RPG members was ratedbetween fair (2) and excellent (5), with most calling it good (3). Level of trust between caucusesin planning work ratings ranged from poor (1), to excellent (5), and everything in between. Thewritten comments listed below also exhibit a wide range of opinions and view points. SteveModdemeyer, Tribal Caucus, wrote: "Increased quality of interaction between points of viewwas achieved. A lot of growth by different caucuses was noticed."

Dana Roberts, Fisheries Caucus, representing his own views, wrote: "For my own part, it has feltas though my own perspective and outlook 'sold' pretty well and I can't complain."

Roger Short, Agriculture Caucus, wrote: "There was always the feeling that our rights werebeing threatened. The finger was pointed at Ag., logging, and development as being the mainreason for lack of fish. 'Roger' you are just doing the homework for the Tribes before they goto court. I do hope we don't end up in court though."

Roger Short, representing his own views, wrote: "I thought we had learned to trust andcooperate. But the last meeting destroyed all of that. I do not think the Environmental Caucuscame to the table to work out a solution. I feel their mission was to stop anything I wanted."

Carol Volk, Recreation Caucus, representing her own views, wrote: "Through thisever-frustrating 'process,' I have learned much from some very good people!"

Bob Wheeler, Local Government Caucus member, representing his own view, wrote: "Overall,the project will be a success because personal relationships were developed that will allow forcontinued plan development after the official project ends next July. The whole process reallycomes down to a trust, consensus, collaboration building exercise and its ultimate success will becontingent on how well we built this trust."



The aspects of the projects which seemed to have the most agreement betweenrespondents of the May 1994 RPG survey are the RPG relationships with Ecology, Staff,and Coordinating Entity. Respondents called the RPG/Ecology working relationshipeither very good (4) or excellent (5), with a clear majority feeling it was "excellent." RPGmembers felt similarly about the RPG/staff working relationship, although "very good(4)" was a slight majority over excellent. Coordinating Entity/staff communication withDQ participants was also called very good (4) or excellent (5), with a slight majorityfeeling it was "excellent."

14. Funding and Accountability The adequacy of State funding for the DQ Projectranged from fair (2) to excellent (5), with a majority rating it very good (4). An additionalcomment from the Agriculture Caucus was that it was "too much." Responses on thequestion of the adequacy of the budget for caucus support ranged from fair (1) toexcellent (5). Nearly all respondents rated the budget for fulfillment of staffing needs asvery good (4); one person each called it good (3) and excellent (5).

There was great variation in responses on the question of the overall cost effectiveness ofthe DQ Project, from poor (1) to excellent (5) to unknown and no response. Responses onthe question of the cost-effectiveness of DQ-funded educational projects varied from fair(2) to excellent (5), the majority being good (3). Responses on the question of thecost-effectiveness of DQ-funded technical projects varied from fair (2) to excellent (5),the majority feeling that they were excellent. A comment was added from the FisheriesCaucus that they "varied somewhat: Lichatowich's work was superb!!"

Respondents to the May 1994 RPG survey rated RPG accountability to funding sources,caucuses, and general public between good (3) and excellent (5). Most of the respondentsfelt both the Coordinating Entity's management of funds and the RPG relationship withthe Coordinating Entity on budget issues was either very good (4) or excellent (5),although one person called it good (3).



15. Staff / Coordinating EntityRespondents to the May 1994 RPG survey called both the effectiveness of theCoordinating Entity and the effectiveness of staff positions either very good (4) orexcellent (5), the majority calling them very good (4). Steve Moddemeyer, Tribal Caucus,wrote: "Excellent staff, excellent and professional job of Coordinating Entity." RogerShort, Agriculture Caucus, also commented that the project "had a good staff." TheRPG/staff working relationship was rated either very good (4) or excellent (5), with aslight majority on the very good (4) side.

15.42 Regulatory Programs and Linkages

Volume 2

Chapter 15

Linkages: Regulatory Programs &Local Influences on Water Resources

Regulatory Programs and Linkages 15.1

Chapter 15Linkages: Regulatory Programs andLocal Influences on Water Resources

General BackgroundThis Chapter summarizes the DQ responsibilities under the Chelan Agreement, theEnvironmental Protection M.O.U. and the Linkages considerations of the Agreement and theRegional Planning Guidelines, (see Chapter 12). Familiarity, if not understanding of the laws,regulations, ordinances, and jurisdictional systems currently used was attempted. The DQLibrary serves as the repository of a rather extensive working collection of documents andcommentary, (see Chapter 4, Information Resources.) The initial collection from Ecology's Lawsand Regulations - Water Resources (Revised December 1991), has been updated as codes havebeen revised 1992, 1993 and the coming 1994. WACs have been secured. Caucus members havecontributed materials from their various files, and various agencies and divisions, and local andfederal branches have contributed on requests made. At this time, the collections have not beencomputerized, but have been available in the Library under the Policy, Law and Government file.The (what some would call) "unorganized" nature of this file had in itself "linkage" potential ascaucuses pawed their way through other unfamiliar disciplines.

From time to time there was impatience and dissatisfaction with "the law," perhaps because thegroup had insufficiently realized the difference between statutory and case law. We had noattorney at the table or available to the project. Several specific requests were made to Ecologyfor enlightenment, but in general, the DQ project proceeded on its own.

1 This Chapter was prepared by Betty Joyce Enbysk, PhD, who is an alternate delegate of theEnvironmental Caucus.



It is our understanding that the Plan will be reviewed, and approved or remanded by Ecology,Water Resources under applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, and that Ecology,Water Resources is the SEPA applicant and lead agency issuing a DNS. There remains thequestion of a possible remand to a project which sunsets within the 90 day review period.

Ways to Look at Water LawDuring the course of this project, several compendia of water law have been produced: a verticallook -- Federal to State to local; a topical look -- water rights, water conservation, water quality,ground water, estuaries, shellfish protection, storm water, NPDES, SEPA, NEPA, wellheadprotection, public health; and planning law -- public water supply, state land use RCW's,Shoreline Management Act, GMA and ramifications thereof. Also considered were: variousenabling legislation allowing for districts or protection areas at the discretion of the county orcity; permits, aquatic lands and forest practices, and the leasing regulations of DNR; theFDA-DOH shellfish protection connection with Ecology's ambient monitoring and surface waterregulations; wetlands regulations; Ecology/DOH water re-use (for what and where); and on thefringes, the scenic and public access issues; as well as public information rules, and State andlocal budget requirements -- all dealing with WATER. It had been suggested early on that weproduce a diagram for this Chapter, e.g. for the DQ area, far each County, and for each City.What resulted were five plates of spaghetti, with a sauce of case law, seasoned with propertyrights, and a dash of the public trust doctrine.

Perhaps the best presentation we could make far this Chapter is to suggest to borrow or buy acopy of the Water Resource Conference "The Sinking Creek Decision: Water Rights in the 21 stCentury," sponsored by the University of Washington School of Law, and the Institute forEnvironmental Studies (Washington Law School Foundation, 1994). There is something in it foreach caucus of the Regional Planning Group.

In summary, the DQ did the best it could with the morass of laws, regulations, ordinances, etc.,as time and talent permitted.



Linkages in the DQ ProjectThis section speaks to DQ Goal 7: To encourage compliance, enforcement and administration ofexisting laws and regulations affecting water resources. Various RCWs are footnoted in theRecommendations Chapters, and international/national and state wildlife regulations are detailedin the Appendix E, Habitat/Wildlife/Wetlands discussion.

An Example of Linkages at the Local Level A more intense consideration of legal linkage wasnecessitated by the on-going attempt to negotiate the examined real needs of irrigators andsalmonids in the Dungeness River (see Chapter 6). All parties needed to really understand theimplications of the Public Trust Doctrine, beneficial uses, riparian rights, adjudicated andnon-adjudicated rights, the differences between Irrigation District RCWs and IrrigationCompany statutes, Trust Water Rights pros and cons, water leasing concepts, and costs andpricing connections. Also important to consider were the actuality of consumptive, partiallyconsumptive and non-consumptive classifications, and the over-riding complications of the PointNo Point Treaty interpretations.

This DQ negotiation in the Clallam County Workgroup is a miniature of that with which theChelan Agreement was supposed deal. That it could be done at all required an act of faith.Unanticipated linkages were often introduced by You can't do that!, followed by Well, maybethere's a way. This hard-working group insists on "ground truth," not hypothetical diagrams orgarbled third-party, mixed message opinions. A somewhat exasperated statement was offeredearly on in the DQ process: Eschew paper water rights. They do not float fish or skippers orkayaks, do not grow hay or broccoli or water the herd, do not make the water taps flow on 'on,'and in fact, do not provide for milling the paper they are written on! But the group persevereswith implementation strategies through the suggested Watershed Councils proposed in Chapters5, 6 and 7, and continues the "ground truth" efforts set out in Chapter 8, ImplementationStrategies.



The Link from Estuary to Headwaters: Some AgendasNot AddressedA major linkage residing in the Clean Water Act was not addressed (see Chapter 14, TheUnfinished Agenda). This linkage concerning estuaries, both actual and jurisdictional, has yet tobe explored, as RPG priorities led in other directions. The basic connection to recognize comesfrom the Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 198'7, Public Law 100-4Section 320 (March 1988), NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM - Puget Sound:

The term estuarine zone shall also include associated aquatic ecosystems and thoseportions of tributaries draining into the estuary up to the historic heights of migration ofanadromous fish or the historic head of tidal influence, whichever is higher.

The link also was missing the input of DNR Aquatic Lands Division and the requirements ofChapter 332-30 WAC dealing with aquatic land planning, public use and access, aquatic landenvironmental protection, marine aquatic plant removal and river management.

The actual implementation of Washington Forest Practices Rules and Regulations Title 222WAC (which had resulted from Timber Fish & Wildlife negotiations), was a neglected agenda.The 9/1192 edition produced by the Forest Practices Board and Ecology was not consulted for itspotential to the proceedings. Discussions/recommendations on the lacustrine environment, andthe Coastal Zone Management Act and its re-authorization as CZARA Section 6217 Guidancewas also missing from the deliberations, as was the Shoreline Management Act manual for localmaster program preparation.



Linkages Under the Chelan AgreementThe Chelan Agreement describes linkages to be considered by the Regional Planning Projects:Regional planning efforts need to recognize the existence between a variety of other planningactivities In scoping and developing regional plans, participants should avoid duplication: Thefollowing Parts A - D address linkages required under the Chelan Agreement.

Linkages -- Part AThere is recognition that water withdrawals can impact water quality. Water qualityshould be integrated into the planning process. The DQ Goal 3, Objectives A, B, and Cspeaks to this integration: To achieve the assurance of the quantity and quality of the water thatis needed in the planning area... All DQ work has included both quantity and quality. At thistime there is a need to integrate point and non-point pollution sources and monitoring; a need tointegrate surface and ground water, and reuse considerations in quantity and quality terms; and aneed to define aquatic life needs in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Although theenvironmentalists have long declaimed that dilution is not the solution to pollution, reasonablepersons will also agree that the poison is in the dose. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor deemed adistinction between water quality and quantity "artificial," in the Supreme Court ruling thatallowed the State to set a minimum river flow standard for a proposed hydroelectric plant on theDosewallips River insofar as necessary to enforce a designated use contained in a state waterquality standard.2

The Department of Ecology is attempting a water quality, watershed approach utilizing the "totalmaximum daily loads," (TMDLs) process required under Section 303(d) of the Federal CleanWater Act. The watershed approach involves coordination on a geographic basis, the issuance ofwastewater discharge permits and nonpoint source controls, with water quality assessmentsrequired by the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately for the DQ area, barring the triggering of anemergency response, the area is far down the list for incorporating into this process

______________________________________2 Peninsula Daily News. High Court rules on Power Plants to Protect Fish. May 31, 1994.



(at least 5 years). This negates the preventative approach which DQ finds important.

Linkages -- Part BLocal land use planning and permit decisions should be compatible with water resourcesplanning. This section has produced, and continues to produce stormy discussions away fromthe RPG tables. The ramifications of the Growth Management Act (GMA) relative to DQ goalsand agencies' responsibilities occupy the 10 foot shelf of proverbial concern. That the DQprocess was concurrent with GMA provided initial distrusts and continuing distrusts amongsome of the participants. It is through the required comprehensive plans' reaching the zoningordinances stage, that the DQ recommendations will be put in place. Each agency has beenforthcoming with notes of their duties and planning for GMA. The DQ hopes that this planningprocess has at least contributed to enlightened self-interest, as the various caucuses return toGMA finalization processes occurring locally in each County.

Agency Participation at the Local Level Linkage face to face (or muddy boot to muddy boot),with the various agency specialists was perhaps the mast valuable activity of the project. 7KT,PGKT, PNPTC, USFS, USFWS, USGS, USSCS, WDOE, WDFW, WDOH and other acronymsassumed human shapes. Presentations and field trips and public meetings brought togetherpeople actually doing their jobs, rather than just talking about it. The DQ ended up knowing localexperts on County and City staffs, consultants, local scientists, engineers, farmers and fishermen,real estate agents, shellfish growers, planners, water system employees, streamside residents,well drillers, ditch walkers, hatchery managers, educators, paper mill personnel and folks with awater resources concern. This sort of linkage can be maintained through the informal groupenvisioned in Chapter 6. Linkage had to take place to produce Chapter 2, the Characterization ofthe area, and Chapter 3, Water Use.

Information Resources The library collection centered at the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribeprovides another kind of linkage, whereby agency regulations and best practices advice, andvarious how to do its become readily available far perusal or copying. Topics include biology,bioengineering,



conservation, education, history, hydrology, geology, planning, water loss calculations, GISpresentations, wetlands, stream flow rates, (see Chapter 4 for information on the DQ Library).We hope the collection can be maintained and expanded.

A specific kind of linkage developed, through data collection and presentation efforts -- theelectronic link to the world. Technical Committee people, Welden and Virginia Clark and stafferLinn Clark, by using shared and purchased equipment, were able to secure and massage data,making it fit for DQ consumption. We hope that County and City cooperation through GIS willcontinue and extend these efforts for continued planning efforts, (see Chapter 9, TechnicalSupport). Would that knowledge and stewardship could be so readily transmitted, but that is thelinkage for the educators (see Appendix C).

Other Chelan Planning ProcessesLinkage with the Water Resources Forum (WRF), and our fellow pilot in the Methow wasvariously maintained. WRF activities and minutes were always made available through memberAnn Seiter (JKT and PNPTC), as were official Methow progress notes and the final Plan.Consideration by RPG of either can be characterized as modest. However, WRF's "GroundwaterRecharge Preservation Policy," (12/9/93) was examined and adopted for the DQ Plan by theJefferson County Work Group, (see Chapter 7, Ground Water J.6). The visit by the Forum inSeptember, 1993 to the RPG was considered very valuable to both the DQ and the WRFmembers.

Legislative LinkagesLinkages to the Legislature and the Congress was maintained through individual caucuses'normal networks, and registered lobbyists. Staff also sent regular reports to the Legislature andEcology, and was available to answer questions from interested Legislators. As indicated inChapter 10, Unfinished Agenda, suggesting and working for RPG project-specificrecommendations was not a part of this project. (Several members remarked that we had enoughtrouble interpreting linkages to existing "laws on the books.") However, what's happening andwhat's going to happen information was shared through newsclips (the Library contains anotebook of water-related articles for the entire planning period), copies of pending bills (theBusiness Caucus was



especially generous with this sharing), and requests to staff for specific items of interest.

Financial Considerations Not altogether in jest, the need for a linkage to Fort Knox wassuggested from time to time. The exigencies of local, State, Tribal and Federal budgets cannot beignored in appraising linkage possibilities. Plans created by agencies and former Memoranda ofUnderstandings may become inoperative under present and future budget constraints. Thesememoranda and plans should be reviewed realistically and without recrimination, as they wereentered into in good faith. According to the National Congress of State Legislatures, there arepresent (1994), 185 State and Federal mandates coming down for implementation by localgovernments. This puts all governments in a mad scramble far grants and revenue allocationsfrom whatever sources are available at the moment's need. Citizen and local governments screamover unfunded mandates, and MOAs echo up and down the linkage tracks.

From SOUNDWAVES/PSWQA, Sept. Oct. 1993

Integrated planning and funding necessary for effectivewater quality protection

Sound Off is devoted to issues of concern to Puget Sound citizens and leaders. In eachissue of Sound Waves, the Authority features citizens and community leadersexpressing them views on water quality issues. This issue we feature Paul Parker anassociate with the Washington Association of Counties. He specializes in environmen-tal, land use and resource issues.

Counties need the financial ability and incentive to coordinate planning andmanagement of water resources with cities, tribes, special districts and state agencieson a watershed basis. Successful coordination of water-related programs and theirintegration with land use planning should reduce costs and assist in eliminating orconsolidating some programs. Coordination is key to creating the efficient andeffective government that citizens are demanding. Unfortunately, ordination is discouraged by limitations on funding sources to specificactivities. A county wishing to address water quality and water supply issues mustdraw upon at least two or three different statutes creating different authorities to plan,manage and fund water-related activities. Greater flexibility in raising funds and usingthem for managing and coordinating watershed activities should not only result inwiser expenditure of public dollars, but increase public confidence in efforts to protectthe environment. Although the Department of Ecology is undertaking a coordinated watershedmanagement approach, it is logical for coordination to begin at the focal level sincewater supply and water quality are so intertwined with land use, to addition to the needfor greater flexibility in raising and using money, the state could encouragecoordination by providing counties, cities, tribes and special districts participating in acoordinated effort a priority for state grant and loan funds.



Linkages -- Part CWhat, if any, linkage exists between on-reservation and off-reservation use and management?This presented no problem to the DQ. The focus was maintained on the subjects spelled out inthe Scoping Document, and the XT and PGKT holdings and business dealings were their own,and handled by other star than were involved in this project. The Natural Resource Departmentsof the Tribes contributed heavily to the project, especially on Dungeness River issues, since theseoccurred in their usual and accustomed areas of use.

Linkages -- Part DOther Federal, State, and local programs impact the water resources in the DQ region. In the listdescribed in Linkages in the Chelan Agreement, the DQ considered all except those specificallyfocused in other areas of the State, e.g. Columbia River Systems Operation Review (see Chapter12, The Chelan Agreement). The following listing of Federal watershed programs are derivedfrom the Significant Watershed Activity Survey.3 More complete descriptions of each programand project may be found in that document, or in each plan.

Federal Watershed Programs

Clinton Administration Forest Plan: The Forest Plan seeks to prevent further degradation, and torestore habitat over broad landscapes as opposed to individual projects or small watersheds.Watersheds containing the best habitat, or with the greatest potential for recovery will receiveincreased protection, and be prioritized for restoration programs. Four key components of theStrategy involve the establishment of (1) riparian reserves; (2) key watersheds crucial for at-riskfish and water quality; (3) a watershed analysis program; and (4) a comprehensive, long-termprogram of watershed restoration efforts, (often referred to as the FEMAT4 process). See Chapter4 for a complete listing of the restoration/enhancement projects occurring in the Quilcene andDungeness Rivers key watersheds.

__________________________3 Lloyd Moody. Significant Watershed Activity Survey. Executive Policy, Office of theGovernor. Draft August 1993.4 FEMAT: Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.



National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): NMFS has proposed a major west coast salmonrestoration initiative. While still in the discussion stage with the State, Tribes and the USFWS,the goal is to provide for the coordination of, and support for watershed-based strategies toprotect and restore natural stocks of salmon, steelhead and sea run cutthroat trout. The initiativeinvolves a coordinating council comprised of the entities named above, led by a high-levelfederal coordinator.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): EPA has designed a "Watershed ProtectionApproach" to refocus existing water pollution control programs to operate in a morecomprehensive and coordinated manner. EPA has established an interagency workgroup withrepresentatives from 6 other Federal agencies to identify watersheds as priorities; the approachalso includes wetlands, estuaries and ground water protection.

Federal Clean Water Act Reauthorization (CWA): This key legislation provides for waterquality in the Nation's waters. The CWA grants the EPA authority to regulate surface and groundwater quality. The proposed Senate CWA reauthorization bill would encourage the Governor ofa state to designate watershed management units; the designation would identify waters notmeeting water quality standards, and the entity responsible for developing and implementing amanagement plan for the watershed. The EPA administrator may approve a comprehensivewatershed management plan; approved plans are eligible for the funding provisions in the bill,Also, an interagency committee is established to support comprehensive watershed managementand planning.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS): USFS is part of the Watershed Alliance on the Olympic and Mt.Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests which emphasizes public outreach, interagency and Tribalinvolvement along with interdisciplinary planning to assure an ecological approach to watershedrestoration work. The USFS Integrated Ecological Watershed Assessment and Analysis programfeatures an integrated resource analysis, a desired future conditions evaluation, andimplementation of specific watershed improvement needs and



monitoring. USFS (Quilcene Ranger District) has been an integral part of the DQ planningprocess, sitting on the Local Government Caucus. The relationship is best expressed in Chapter7, J.4 and J.5 :7.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): USFWS has two major watershed initiatives. First,with WDFW, the Ecosystem Conservation Program is a statewide effort to work on a cost-share,partnership basis with private landowners to restore and enhance fish and wildlife habitat onprivate lands. Second, with USFS, USFWS has formed the Watershed Alliance (see above) towork on restoration projects. The National Forests work at the headwaters of various watersheds,and USFWS works with private, State, Tribal owners on restoration projects in the lowerwatershed (such as in the Dungeness River). Biologists from USFWS have been activeparticipants on the DQ Technical Committee, and contributed in various places in the Plan, e.g.see Hiss, lnstream Flows, Chapters 6 and 7.

U.S. Conservation Service (SCS): The SCS "Total Resource Management Planning" program isdivided into two parts: watershed planning and treatment. The watershed planning staff respondsto field office requests for developing watershed plans with involvement from Ecology, USFWS,Washington State Conservation Commission, and local conservation districts (CD). The landtreatment side of the plan focuses on creating and implementing plans for individual farms withwater quality, erosion control and secondary fishery benefits incorporated. The SCS/CDpersonnel have been active participants on both the DQ Technical and Education Committees.

State Watershed Programs

Chelan Agreement: See Chapter 12:

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW): Recently combined as one agency,WDFW has several watershed-related programs. The Integrated Landscape Managementprogram focuses on identifying, with local individuals the objectives for watershed-basedwildlife protection, and to tie agency workplans and budgets to those publicly identified goalsand objectives. The Priority Habitat and Species Program identifies management objectives.WDFW works with



DNR on watershed projects on the Olympic Peninsula, as well as with the local County projects.WDFW, with the Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes is sponsoring the Wild-stockRestoration Initiative which will involve significant watershed-related work (see Chapter 7,Stock Status Categories Defined, SASSI and the Glossary). Biologists from the former WDFwere active participants on the DQ, and provided the Habitat information in Appendix D.

SHB 1785 Jobs and the Environment Legislation: A 1993 bill established an interagencyprogram to create employment opportunities in watershed restoration work, particularly fordisplaced timber workers in rural communities. An eight-member interagency task force wasestablished, with $3.25 million each to Ecology and DNR to fund environmental restorationwork. Funding for work under this bill in both counties was received by JKT, Clallam Countyand the Olympic Peninsula Trust.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR): DNR in partnership with WDFW and USFS, runsthe Washington Forest Landscape Management Project. The project is watershed-based, and itsgoal is to determine whether it is possible to integrate forest management across Federal, Tribal,State, and private land ownerships for fish and wildlife protection. In addition, the ForestResources Plan (adopted 1992) guides DNR's management of it's forested lands.

SHB 1309 Fish and Wildlife Management: This 1993 bill established a several-pronged effortto protect and enhance wild salmon stocks. In particular, it requires Ecology to establish astatewide list of priorities for evaluation of instrearn flows; in establishing these priorities,Ecology shall consider the production of wild salmon as its primary goal. (See DQRecommendations on Instream Flows, Chapters 6 & 7.)

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA): The Puget Sound Plan calls for localcommunities to prepare watershed action plans to reduce non-point pollution in the Puget SoundBasin. To date, 12 watershed plans have been completed and are being implemented; 22 plansare in the planning and development stage (1993). (See below for Watershed Management Plansin the DQ area.)



Department of Ecology (Ecology): Ecology's primary watershed-related role has been fundingcomponents of water quality plans developed under the Puget Sound Plan, and other plans, andhas provided primary support for the two pilot projects under the Chelan Agreement. (SeeLinkage Part A.) Staff from the Water Resources Department has given critical, on-goingsupport to the DQ planning effort, including active participation on the Technical Committee andCounty Work Groups.

Forest Practices Board (FPB): The Board in 1992 adopted rules regulating cumulative impactsof forest practices on a watershed basis. The Long-term objective of these regulations is toprotect public resources such as water quantity and quality, and fish and wildlife habitat.Analyses are conducted on watershed administrative units, generally between 10,000 and 50,000acres within a basin, and for each resource sensitivity identified, prescriptions are developed tominimize or prevent impacts on certain public resources. (See Chapter 12, EnvironmentalProtection MO U.) There has been no linkage between the DQ and the FPB, except whenexpertise about forest practices was brought to the table by DQ participants.

State Conservation Commission (SCC): The Commission encourages the use of a CoordinatedResource Management and Planning (CRMP) process to implement a resource management planfor a given local area. An objective of the process is to work with private citizens, conservationdistricts and local governments in developing coordinated resource plans.

Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team: This is an interagency, multidisciplinary teamwhich assists local governments carrying out the PSWQA Management Plan. The team providestechnical assistance directly to local governments and watershed management committees. Theteam began in 1987 and has to date (1993) provided assistance to all 12 Puget Sound counties in26 watersheds. Much of the GIS data used by the DQ came from the River Basin Team. (SeeWatershed Plans below.)

Northwest Ecosystem/Watershed Workgroup (NEWW): This is an is informal workgroupconsisting of local, State, Federal and Tribal



resource managers from Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The group _has been meeting since thefall of 1992 to formulate a conceptual framework and action strategy for promoting coordinatedecosystem/watershed management in the Pacific Northwest.



Local Watershed Plans and Projects

Linked from the Clean Water Act, to EPA, to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and theDepartment of Ecology, Watershed Action Plans are developed in Water Resource InventoryAreas (WRIAs) under Chapter 400-12 WAC. The Plans deal only with non-point sourcepollution affecting surface waters, and are the major guidelines for local land use activities andprotection, leading the way to enhancement and restoration activities for water quality andquantity protection.

The following are planning efforts and projects, including Watershed Action Plans in the DQarea:

WRIA 17 Sequim Bay Watershed Management Plan

Activities include the coordination of widespread public education/involvement throughcommunity projects and the development of farm plans for bacteria control, septic tankinformation, a marine inventory, and clean up and repair of landslides. Includes Bell Creek,Johnson Creek, "A", "B", "C" and "D" Creeks, Dean Creek, Jimmy Come Lately Creek andChicken Coop Creek.

Discovery Bay Watershed Management Plan (in process)Includes streams entering Discovery Bay covered by the Puget Sound Cooperative River BasinTeam prior to the end of the planning effort: Eagle Creek, Contractors Creek, Salmon Creek,Snow Creek, Andrews Creek, Chevy Chase drainage.

Draft Ludlow Watershed Action PlanIn Jefferson County's number one priority watershed, an extensive monitoring programestablished with emphasis on storm water, sediment, septic and shellfish. Includes three creeksentering Mats Mats Bay, Ludlow Creek and two smaller streams entering Port Ludlow, and asmall stream to Squamish Harbor west of Shine (upper Squamish Harbor Basin, Feb. 1992).

Quilcene Management PlanDeveloped by the Quilcene Ranger District, Olympic National Forest, the interim plan providedguidelines for management practices, protection and rehabilitation measures to protect andimprove water quality, to be in effect until the Forest Plan was approved. Includes the Big andLittle Quilcene Rivers.



Cooperative Watershed Protection Program for the Big and Little Quilcene MunicipalWatershedDeveloped by the USFS and the City of Port Townsend to provide protection for the watersources for the City. (See Chapter 7, J.5.7.)

Tunnel and Townsend Creek Subwatersheds - Big Quilcene River BasinPart of USFS "Watershed Restoration Initiative," specific actions include erosion control, roadobliteration, road stabilization, dispersed recreation site evaluation, culvert passage, and publiceducation. A combined effort of City of Port Townsend, USFS, the S'Klallam Tribes, JeffersonCounty Cooperative Extension, and Water Watchers (volunteers trading time for training).

Quilcene/Dabob Bays Watershed Action PlanProject implemented agricultural components of the Plan and reduced agricultural impacts onwater quality throughout the County. Commercial and non-commercial farm operators wereeducated about water quality protection and riparian habitat enhancement. Includes ThorndykeCreek, an un-named creek entering at Camp Discovery, Tarboo Creek, Donovan Creek, andstreams draining the Mount Walker area east to Quilcene Bay.

WRIA 18 Dungeness Watershed Habitat Inventory (in process)

Cost sharing project between the Olympic National Forest, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, andthe Point No Point Treaty Council to conduct habitat inventories both in the tower and upperDungeness. Habitat monitoring and fisheries distribution data will be collected to aid in assessingrestoration efforts for declining runs of pink and Chinook.

Dungeness River Area Watershed Management Plan and ProjectCoordinates three year watershed management effort to inventory and evaluate the water qualityin the watershed including potential sources of nonpoint pollution and possible effects ondrinking and ground water. Includes Bagley Creek, Siebert Creek, Agnew Creek, McDonnellCreek, an un-named creek entering SW end of Dungeness Bay, Dungeness River, MeadowbrookCreek, Cooper Creek, Cassalery Creek and Gierin Creek.



Port Angeles Urban Watershed ProjectClallam County is attempting to coordinate several planning activities together in this endeavorincluding water quality, growth management, and stormwater management. The Puget SoundCooperative River Basin Team is providing the County with information on agriculture, forestry,wetlands, and stream corridors as well as helping the County assemble a comprehensive GISdata base. The Port Angels sub-area plans being created for GMA Comprehensive planninginclude the development of a Watershed Management Plan. Clallam County PUD supplies waterfrom this area to the western edge of the DQ area.

In both WRIA 17 & 18 Sequim-Dungeness Groundwater Protection Project

Nearly completed, under the direction of Clallam County Water Quality Division, it is to besubmitted to the Board of Commissioners and Ecology in late July 1994. DQ members haveworked closely on this project and have shared JKT, DQ and County resources.

Partial List of Projects in Adjoining Watersheds, by Water Resource Inventory AreaWRIA 15 Kitsap: Port Gamble Bay Plan, CCWF Ambient Monitoring Project, Evaluation ofNatural Stock Improvement Measures for Coho Salmon, Hood Canal Restoration Project. WRIAlb Skokomish-Dosewallips: Upper Hood Canal Watershed Plan, Hood Canal Summer ChumRestoration Project, Lower Hood Canal Watershed Management Plan, Port Angeles UrbanWatershed project.

Additional Locally-based Programs and Councils Affecting Water Resources

Growth Management Act (GMA)The 1990-91 GMA provides a basis for comprehensive planning in watersheds. Specifically, theGMA requires all counties and cities to designate certain lands as critical areas, defined aswetland, areas critical for aquifer recharge, fish and wildlife conservation and frequently floodedareas; each planning jurisdiction is required to adopt regulations to protect critical areas. Inaddition, comprehensive plans in



GMA areas must have a land use element which, among other, requirements, provides for theprotection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies, and whereapplicable, to provide for corrective actions mitigating discharges which pollute waters of theState. GMA requires consistency and coordination with the comprehensive plans of neighboringjurisdiction. Watershed planning is a logical approach to satisfying these mandatoryrequirements of GMA. (see Linkage Part B.)

Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC)HCCC is an intergovernmental body dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the naturalresources of the Hood Canal Region through coordinated watershed management. HCCC iscomposed of a Policy Body with members including local and Tribal governments, Federal andState agencies, as well as representatives from local watershed management committees.

Tribal Watershed ProgramsCoordinated Tribal Water Quality Programs: federally-recognized Indian Tribes in Washingtonhave developed and are implementing a watershed-based program, in cooperation with local,State and Federal governments, to address water quality issues affecting Indian reservationcommunities and oil reservation treaty-protected resources. Both PGKT and JKT are activeparticipants in these programs.

A partial list of other programs working in the watersheds includes:Private watershed projects/councils/organizations -- Pacific Rivers Council, Project Green,Adapt-A-Stream Foundation, Trout Unlimited. In the DQ region, very active and successfulprograms/projects come from the Wild Olympic Salmon, North Olympic Salmon Coalition,Olympic Environmental Council, Washington Environmental Council, League of WomenVoters, Peninsula Trails Coalition, and each County's local Land Trusts and Audubon Societies,as well as the myriad of citizens participating in individual stewardship activities.

Final Linkages Establishing a linkage through the current thrust for regional planning orcoordinated watershed-based natural resource planning, we refer to the Bill and ExecutiveOrder approved by the Governor, April 1, 1994.

Perhaps through real linkage the DQ Mission Statement will be achieved:

Our mission in the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Planning Project is towork cooperatively to meet water quality and quantity needs of human and naturalsystems in a manner that will insure the sustainability of both.

We offer the following good advice from NOAA for inter-agency linkage activities:

Given the number of participants working to fulfill their ownmandate to provide protection for (water) resources, it isnecessary to begin designing a management structure thatcombines the strengths of all. Studying models forcollaboration provides some direction for creating a newstructure specific to the task of long-range planning andmanagement for the protection of the resource. A truecollaboration involves working toward a common objective thatno single participating organization can accomplish alone.Collaboration needs to take place within a local context to beeffective. Agencies' management objectives can benefit bypromoting locally-based and shared decision-making... Thispartnership must be founded on a shared vision. The needs andinterests of the different agencies must be determined, and thecontributions of each partner must be clear. Funding, staffingand contributions of agency expertise are investments to ensurethe success of the common objective. Ultimately each memberorganization must see a way to achieve success in its resourceprotection mandate in exchange for its investment in thepartnership. (from NOAA, Sanctuaries and Resources Division, 1992).

Appendix

Appendix A

References

References A.1

Appendix AReferences

Abbott, N.C., and Carver, F.E. 1978. The Evolution of Washington Counties.

Alt, D.D., and Hyndman, D.W. 1984. Roadside Geology of Washington. Mountain Press Publishing Co.

Amerman, K.S., and Orsborn, J.F. 1987. An Analysis of Streamflows on the Olympic Peninsula.

Beecher, H.A. 1980. Wildlife and Instream Flows of the Quilcene Basin (WRIA 17). Habitat Management Division,Washington Department of Game, Olympia, Washington.

Beecher, H.A. 1980. Fish, Wildlife, and Instream Flows in the Elwha-Dungeness Basin (WRIA 18). HabitatManagement Division, Washington Department of Game, Olympia, Washington.

Big Quilcene River Basin Local Interagency Team. April 1994. Big Quilcene River Basin Preliminary WatershedAssessment.

Boomer, R.S. 1990. Letter to Lloyd Phinney, Washington Department of Fisheries, dated September 13, 1990. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia, Washington.

Brown and Caldwell. 1984. Residential Water Conservation Projects: Summary Report. U.S. Dept. of Housing andUrban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Building Technology Division.

Brubaker, L. Monthly precipitation for periods back to the 1870's for Port Angeles and Port Townsend. Universityof Washington.

Burns, R. 1985. The Shape and Form of Puget Sound.

Burroughs, W.J. 1992. Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary?

Cable, Melanie. 1992. Flow Measurements of the Dungeness River and the Irrigation System - 1992. TheJamestown S'Mallam Tribe.

Clallam County Department of Community Development and Sequim-Dungeness Groundwater Committee. June1994. Sequim-Dungeness Groundwater Protection Strategies.

Clark, Welden. March 1993. An Overview of the Water Resources of the DQ Pilot Project Area. DQ TechnicalNote.

Clark, Welden, and Clark, Linn. March 1993. Dungeness River Daily Flows: Historical Data for 1923-1990 and anIndication of Bedload Transport. DQ Technical Note.

Clark, Welden, and Clark, Virginia. July 1992. Stream Profiles of the Dungeness River System. DRAWMCTechnical Note.

Clark, Welden, and Clark, Virginia. July 1993. Notes on the Dungeness River System: Flows and Precipitation. DQTechnical Note.

Clark, Wendy. 1993. Clallam County Population Projections. Clallam County Department of CommunityDevelopment. (unpublished)


A.2 References

Collins, Brian. July 1993. Sediment Transport and Deposition in the Lower Big Quikene River and Evaluation ofPlanned Gravel Removal for Flood Control. Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Planning Project andHood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group.

Committee on Western Water Management. 1992. Water Transfers in the West: Efficiency, Equity, and theEnvironment. Natural Research Council, National Academy Press.

Diaz, H.F., and Markgraf, V., Editors. 1992. El Nino: Historical and Paleoclimatic Aspects of Southern Oscillation.

Drost, B. W. 1986. Water Resources of Clallam Co, Washington: Phase 1 Report. U.S. Geological SurveyWater-Resources Investigations Report 83-4227.

Drost, B. W. 1983. Impact of Changes in Land Use on the Ground-Water System in the Sequim-DungenessPeninsula, Clallam County, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report83-4094. Tacoma, Wash.

Downing, J. 19$3. The Coast of Puget Sound: Its Processes and Development.

Dungeness River Area Watershed Management Committee and Clallam County Department of CommunityDevelopment. May 1993. Dungeness River Area Watershed Management Plan.

Easterbrook, D.J., Blunt, D.J., and Rutter, N.W. 1987. Chronology of Pleistocene Sediments in the Puget Lowland.

Economic and Engineering Services. 1992. Draft Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan.

Economic and Engineering Services and Pacific Groundwater Group. 1993. Draft Eastern Jefferson CountyGroundwater Characterization Study . Jefferson County PUD #l.

Forbes, R.B., and CH2M Hill. 1993. Preliminary Assessment of Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Water Wells inEastern Clallam and Eastern Jefferson Counties. Dungeness-QuiIcene Water Resources Pilot PlanningProject, The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

Galster, R.W. 1989. Ediz Hook: A Case History of Coastal Erosion and Mitigation. Engineering Geology inWashington, Vol. 2,

Geomax. 1994. Comprehensive Flood Management Plan for the Big Quilcene and Dosewallips Rivers. JeffersonCounty Public Works.

Golder Associates. April 1993. Geotechnical Investigations of the Gold Creek Slide Complex. USFS, QuilceneRanger District.

Grimstad, and Carson. Apr. 1981. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Eastern Jefferson County, WA.Department of Ecology.

Gustafson, C., Gilbow, D., and Daugherty, R. 1979. The Manis Mastodon Site: Early Man on the OlympicPeninsula.

Hart, J. L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottowa.

Henderson, J.A., Peter, D.H., Lesher, R.D., and Shaw, D.C. 1989. Forested Plant Associations of the Olympic NationalForest. USDA Forest Service, R6 ECOL Technical Paper 001-88.

Hiss, J.M. May 1993. Recommended Instream Flows for the Lower Dungeness River. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, Washington.


References A.3

Hiss, J.M. September 1993. Instream Flow Recommendations for the Dungeness-Quilcene Area Salmon andSteelhead Streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office,Olympia, Washington.

Hiss, J.M. 1989. Snorkel Survey of Upper Quilcene. Memorandum to file from Joe Hiss dated September 25, 1989.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, Washington.

Hiss, J.M., and J. Lichatowich. September 1990. Executive Summary of the Dungeness River IFIIM Study. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and The Jamestowa S'Klallam Tribe.

Hiss, J. M., and P. Wampler. July 1991. Fish Habitat Analysis for the Dungeness River Using the Instream FlowIncremental Methodology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office.

Holland, James. 1993. Population Change in Jefferson County: the Next 20 Years. Jefferson County PlanningDepartment, Port Townsend, WA.

Hosey and Associates. 1985. The Instream Flow and Aquatic Mitigation Proposal for the Big QuilceneHydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 5202-00) for Jefferson County Public Utility District No. 1, PortTownsend, Washington. Harza Northwest, Inc., Bellevue, Washington.

Hutsell, David. June 1993. Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Planning Project: Intern Report.

Keeting, V., Editor. 1976. Dungeness, The Lure of a River: A Bicentennial History of the East End of Clallam'County.

Kramer, Chin, and Mayo, Inc. Dec. 1990. Dungeness River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan.Clallam County Public Works Department.

Lichatowich, J. 1993. The Status of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the Streams of Eastern Jefferson County,Washington.

Lichatowiclr, J. 1992. Dungeness River Pink and Chinook Salmon Historical Abundance, Current Status, andRestoration. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

Lichatowich, J. 1993. The Status of Pacific Salmon Stocks in the Quilcene Ranger District. U.S. Forest Service,Quilcene Ranger District.

Lichatowich, J. 1993. Oral History of Dungeness River Salmon Part 1: Interview with Dick Goin. JamestownS'Klallam Tribe.

Lichatowich, J. 1993. Review of the Influence Exerted by Environmental Factors on Spring Chinook Salmon in theDungeness River. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

Lehotsky, C. 1993. Water-right low-flow provisions for Jefferson County streams. Memorandum from ChuckLehotsky, Water Resources Program, Southwest Region to Cindy Young, Dungeness-Quilcene Project,dated December 10, 1993. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Wash.

Local Interagency Team. April 1994. Big Quilcene River Basin Preliminary Watershed Assessment. USFWS.

Long. 1975. unpublished reports. USFS, Quilcene Ranger District.

Ludlow Watershed Management Committee. March 1992. Ludlow Watershed Action Plan For the Control ofNonpoint Source Pollution (Preliminary Draft). Jefferson County Planning and Building Department.


A.4 References

Market Data Research Corporation, ? . Puget Sound Residential Indoor Water Use Study: Total Region ReportSummary.

Meany, E. 1927. The Vancouver Journals.

Montgomery Water Group. 1993. Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Planning Pilot Project: Irrigation DitchLeakage Assessment. Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Planning Project.

Moody, Lloyd. Aug. 1993. Significant Watershed Activity Survey (Draft).

Nehlsen, W.; Williams, J.E.; Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk fromCalifornia, Oregon and Washington. Fisheries (Bethesda) 14(2):4-21.

Neiburger, M., Edinger, J.G., and Bonner, W.D. 1982. Understanding our Atmospheric Environment. W.H. Freemanand Co, San Francisco.

Noble, J.B. 1960. A Preliminary Report an the Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Sequim-DungenessArea.

Northwest Hydraulics Consultants. 1987. Dungeness River Study. Clallam County Department of Public Works.

Olexer, Marycile. 1993. Conserving Water ...for the Fish, the Farms, and the Future. The Dungeness-QuilceneWater Resources Planning Project, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Wash. State University CooperativeExtension.

Orsborn, J.F., and Ralph, S.C. Nov. 1992. An Aquatic Resource Assessment of the Dungeness River Basin System.

Othberg, K. and Palmer, P. 1979. Preliminary Surficial Geologic Maps, Carlsborg Quadrangle, Clallam County,Washington.

Parker, J.G. 1984. An Analysis of the Water Resource Management of the Big and Little Quilcene River Basins.

Pessl, F., Jr., et al. 1989. Surficial Geologic Map of the Port Townsend 30 by 60 minute quadrangle. Puget SoundRegion, WA.

Peyser, Cindy. 1992. Build-Out Report on the Optimum Land Use Map, Jefferson County Planning and BuildingDept.

Polaris Engineering and Surveying, Inc. 1993. 1993 Comprehensive Water Plan for The City of Sequim ClallamCounty, Wash. City of Sequim, WA.

Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team. July 1988. Sequim Bay Watershed. Sequim Bay WatershedManagement Committee.

Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team. June 1991. Dungeness River Area Watershed. Dungeness River AreaWatershed Management Committee.

Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team. Nov. 1992. Discovery Bay Watershed. Discovery Bay WatershedManagement Committee.

Quilcene Ranger District. 1988. Watershed Management Plan For the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. U.S. ForestService.

Quilcene/Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee and Jefferson County Planning Department. April 1991.Quilcene/Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan.


References A.5

Rocky Mountain Institute. 1991. Water Efficiency: A Resource For Utility Managers, Community Planners, andOther Decision-makers.

Sequim Bay Watershed Management Committee. Oct. 1991. Sequim Bay Watershed Management Plan: ACommunity Based Resource Management Plan. Clallam County Department of Community Development.

Sinclair, K.A., and Garrigues, R.S. 1994. Geology, Water Resources, and Sea-Water Intrusion Assessment ofMarrowstone Island, Jefferson County, Washington. Department of Ecology, Water-Supply Bulletin No.59. Water Resources Program, Olympia, Wash.

Slattery, Kenneth. 1992. Washington State Water Law. Washington Department of Ecology.

Snavely, P.D., Jr. 1980. Makah Formation: A Deep-Marginal-Basin Sedimentary Sequence of Late Eocene andOligocene Age in the Northwestern Olympic Peninsula, Washington.

Soule, Ann. 1993. Sequim-Dungeness Groundwater Quality Study. Clallam County Department of CommunityDevelopment.

Steelquist, R.U. 1989. _ Ferryboat Field Guide to Puget Sound.

Swift, C. H. 1979. Preferred Stream Discharges for Salmon Spawning and Rearing in Washington. Open-File Report77-422. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, Washington.

Tabor, R.W., and Cady,W.M. 1978. The Structure of the Olympic Mountains, Washington -- Analysis of aSubduction Zone. USGS Professional Paper 1033.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Wildlife of the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan Olympic National Forest.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1994. A Plan of Study for the Ground- and Surface- Water Resources, the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Planning Project. Water Resources Division, Tacoma, WA.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1955. Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United States Through September1950. Water Supply Paper #1316.

VanderLeeder, Fritz, et al. 1990. Water Encyclopedia. 2nd Ed.

Volk, C. 1994. Letter to Ron Wong, Manager, Quilcene National Fish Hatchery from D/Q Recreational Caucusdated January 24, 1994.

Wagner, H.C., et al.. 1986. Continental Shelf and Upper Continental Slope of Coastal Washington.

Wagner, H.C., and Tomson, J.H. 1987. Offshore Geology of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington and BritishColumbia.

Washington Dept. of Ecology. 1993. WRIA 17& 18 Surface and Ground Water Rights Data. Water RightsInformation System.

Washington Dept. of Health. 1993. Jefferson County Water Systems. Water Facilities Inventory Data.

Washington Dept. of Health. 1992. Clallam County Water Systems. Water Facilities Inventory Data.

Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty IndianTribes. 1993. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Washington Department ofFisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia,Washington.


A.6 References

Washington Department of Fisheries. September 2993. Memorandum to Participation List from Wild Stock CoreGroup regarding updates to SASSI, dated September 8, 1993.

Wennekens, P. 1993-94. DQ Technical Committee papers.

Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization:Vol. I: Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.

Wood, R.L. 1984. Olympic Mountains Trail Guide.

Zajac, D. 1989. Adult Coho Passage at Quilcene NFH. Memorandum to Project Leader, Fisheries Assistance Office,Olympia, Washington from Supervisory Biological Technician, Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia,dated October 21, 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office,Olympia, Washington.

Appendix BDQ Budget

DQ Budget B.1

Appendix BDQ Budget

Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Planning ProjectBUDGET OVERVIEW

July 1, 1991- August 30, 1994 (Prepared 6/30/94)

Washington State appropriated approximately $600,000 to the DQProject, which has been spent as follows:

Technical Studies . ..................................................................... $125,000Development of GIS . ................................................................. $ 72,500Coordination and Staffing* ....................................................... $234,000Facilitation . ................................................................................ $ 42,500Caucus Support . ......................................................................... $ 49,000Education . .................................................................................. $ 25,500Other (overhead, audit, meeting space) ................................... . $ 43, 500

$592,000*Coordination and Staffing (other than GIS project):

Wages/benefits $169,000Travel $ 2,000Supplies $ 10,000Equipment $ 15,000Copies/Printing $ 36,000Postage $ 2.000

$234,000

We estimate volunteers, many of whom are technical and professional experts, have contributedmore than 12,000 documented hours to the Dungeness-Quileene Planning Process, with manymare undocumented. This level of volunteer commitment is expected to continue during the DQPlan implementation.

Other funds/projects which have been leveraged directly as a result of this project or indirectly tocoordinate with this project include:

EPA - Water Conservation and Pollution Education $125,000PIE/PSWQA - Manual of Dungeness Natural History Information $ 25,000

and EducationCCWF/USGS & Clallam Co. - Hydrogeological analysis $400,000USFS/DNR*/JKT - Dungeness Habitat Inventory and Stock Restoration $200,000Federal Timber Plan/LTSFWS - Quilcene Watershed Assessment naSequim/Dungeness Water Users - Ditch Improvements 1994 $ 50,000Clallam County/DNR*/EPA Dungeness Bank Stabilization and Restoration $525,000

*Jobs for the Environment


B.2 DQ Budgets

Summary of Immediate Implementation NeedsThe following items represent the most critical elements for implementation which need fundingduring the next few years:

1. Water Resources Study: Hydrogeological investigation of quality and quantity of surfaceand ground water in the DQ region, and streamflow monitoring, based on the 5 year workplan completed by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Costs:Clallam County: Total $1,081,147Commitments: USGS $540,573 (50%)

CCWF $187,000Clallam Cnty. $150,000 est.

UNMET NEED: $200,000

Jefferson County: Total $1,607,202Commitments USGS 50%

City/PUD possibly 25%

UNMET NEED: $400,000 (25%)

2. Agricultural Water Users Irrigation Ditch System Conservation Improvements: Technicalstudies and user analysis during the DQ project identified a number of ditch improvementmeasures. Water users have spent approximately $54,000 this year to implement some ofthese measures, and have agreed to fund a Water Use Coordinator seasonally. However,further improvements to the system are hampered by the difficulty in accessingReferendum 38 funds. Two areas of need are identified:

a. Complete detailed conservation plan far Ref. 38 eligibility. Based on other plansaround the State, this could range from $250,000 to $500,000 depending on whetherplans are done on a consolidated basis for the whale system, or separately for eachindividual district. Additionally, our ditch companies and districts are intertwined,and the Water Users


DQ Budget B.3

would like to incorporate these into a single conservation plan.

AND/OR

b. Begin ditch improvements already identified, e.g. pipe leaky sections, improved turnoutstructures, pipe laterals, etc. Cost of $250,000 for initial improvements is estimated, howeverRef. 38 cannot be tapped until a conservation plan is completed.

3. Staff Support for the Watershed Council: Continue 2+ staff positions for one year to assist inCouncil formation, completion of funding packages, data management and tracking planimplementation. Applications have been submitted to federal and private sources, but no fundinghas yet been identified.

2.25 FTE's: $125,000 for salaries and benefits. Office space, supplies and equipment, and somedata management staff salary to be provided by Tribe.

4. Department of Ecology: Adequate funding for the Departmentof Ecology to fulfill the recommendations mandated in the DQplan, including rule making, establishment of minimum flows,completion of trust water rights agreements, relinquishment, andenforcement. At least one FTE for the DQ plan is needed.

5. Other: Other major needs for implementation include habitatrestoration and conservation education. We are seeking fundingsources such as the Jobs for the Environment program andfederal sources for these components. However, this need willprobably continue for a 5 year period, and funding is coming inone-year increments.

Appendix C

DQ Education Plan

DQ Education Plan C.1

Appendix CDQ Education Plan

IntroductionThe education goals of the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Planning Project are: tolisten to the concerns of the public about their water resource, and to educate the public abouttheir water resources and their impacts on them. This Education Plan outlines a range ofeducational activities aimed at increasing the public's awareness of water resource issues in theClallam and Jefferson county planning area, providing information on how members of thepublic can better protect and conserve water, and instilling in the public a widespread sense ofstewardship for water resources in their watersheds. Ultimately, the intent of this plan is tochange attitudes and behavior among identified target audiences resulting in increasedconservation of water and greater protection and enhancement of water quality within theplanning area.

This plan offers a comprehensive program of education activities aimed at a number of targetgroups. Many of the activities described herein are presently being carried out by resource andeducational agencies, governments, and school districts in the two-county area. Others have beenidentified as needed programs agencies are willing to undertake if funding could be secured. Theplan also contains programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the Dungeness-Quilceneplanning process. The planning process offers the unique opportunity for assessment andlong-term coordination among water resource educational efforts in the two-county area. Action3.2 provides the groundwork for this, and it should be seen as a high priority.

In planning education programs for a diverse, two-county area, it is often necessary to takeadvantage of educational opportunities as they arise. An effective plan must be dynamic andflexible enough to adapt to changes and new opportunities. Therefore, the specific activities and

Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management

C.2 DQ Education Plan

programs listed here are not intended to define the allowable limits of educational activities,rather they are intended to provide a working baseline from which activities can be selected oradapted to meet identified needs.

The Resource Planning Group understands that stewardship requires a long-term commitment toeducation about water resources. Education must be an ongoing effort carried out by multipleagencies and reaching every facet of the population. The messages, target audiences, actionsteps, and appropriate evaluations listed below assume an active, long-term commitment andinvestment in the protection of water resources in Clallam and Jefferson counties.

1. Educational Messages1. Rationale behind water resource planning; purpose of Dungeness-Quilcene Pilot

Planning Project, how to participate in process, and what to do to conserve andprotect water resources.

2. Water conservation practices in the home, yard, and business.3. Nonpoint pollution, nature and prevention.4. Habitat protection and enhancement.5. Watershed dynamics: "We all live downstream."

Goal A: To listen to the concerns of the public about their water resource.

Target Audience: General publicMessage: Solicit input (concerns, level of awareness,

desires)Desired Outcome: Awareness of process, how to participate, and

need to change behavior; data on current levelsof awareness

Action:1.1 Initiate an informational campaign on the D-Q process stressing

public involvement; provide regular press releases andinformational mailings to interested parties and key audiences.1.1a. Develop a survey questionnaire designed to solicit concerns and ideas as well

as gage levels of knowledge




and behavior regarding water resource issues. Offer voluntary participation throughnewspaper advertisements.

Evaluation: Resurvey in 3-4 years.

Goal B: To educate the public about their water resources and their impacts on them.

2. Programs for general public

Target Audience: Civic groups and organizationsMessage: #1Desired Outcome: Understanding of process, participation, desire to learn more.

Actions:2.1 Develop a 15-20 minute slide presentation outlining the

background, planning process, issues, potential solutions, androle of public: in process participation, water conservation, andprevention of nonpoint pollution.2.1.a. Develop a speakers bureau in both counties to offer presentations to civic,

environmental, and sportsman's, and water user's associations, businesses andchurch groups.

2.1.b. Develop two sets of educational displays (to be housed in each county)describing the planning project and showing how people can conserve waterand protect water quality. Set up displays at fairs, festivals, and expositions likethe home show. Provide a staff person or volunteer to answer questions anddistribute informational materials.

Target Audience: Municipal and PUD water usersMessage: #2 & 3Desired Outcome: Reduction of water use & nonpoint prevention.

Action:2.2 Initiate educational mailings to municipal and PUD customers stressing: 1) ways to

conserve water in and around the home, and



2) ways to prevent nonpoint pollution in and around the home. May require separatemailings. Support PUD water conservation programs with educational materialsspecific to watersheds.

Evaluation: Evaluate behavior change through second survey.

Target Audience: Community water system usersMessage: #2 & 3Desired Outcome: Reduction of water use and nonpoint prevention.

Actions:2.3 Initiate educational mailings to community water system customers stressing: 1)

ways to conserve water and 2) ways to prevent nonpoint pollution, in and aroundthe home. May require separate mailings.2.3.a. Meet with small community water system operators and stress same

educational message.Evaluation: Evaluate behavior change through second survey.

Target Audience: Homeowners served by wells & septic systemsMessage: #2, 3 & 5Desired Outcome: Watershed stewardship, reduction of water use and nonpoint

prevention.Actions:

2.4. Distribute educational information and brochures through realtors, septicdesigners and installers, well drillers, and city and county agencies.2.4.a. Conduct technical workshops for well drillers and septic installers,2.4.b. Conduct septic system maintenance and well/groundwater protection

workshops for septic and well owners.2.4.e. Distribute septic system stickers (type of system, map, "do's and don't's") to

new home owners and those repairing septic systems; make them availableto general public.

2.4.d. Install video monitors in city and county permit desks for public review ofseptic, well protection, and other water resource protection programs.Develop or adapt programs as needed.



Evaluation: Survey workshop participants; monitor numbers of average yearly septicrepairs (counties) before and 2 years after initiating program; evaluate septic and wellattitudes and behaviors over 3-4 year survey period (Action I.lb).

Target Audience: Volunteer groupsMessage: #4 & 5Desired Outcome: Improved water quality and habitat.Actions:2.5. Offer workshops, technical assistance, and agency coordination for groups to

participate in habitat enhancement, pollution prevention, and education projectson local streams, wetlands, and coastal areas. 2.5.a. Train volunteers to conducthome water efficiency tours and demonstrate water conservation practices in thehome to interested participants; develop a self-guided home water conservationkit.

Evaluation: Monitor water quality/habitat use and level of public participation before andafter projects.

Target Audience: General publicMessage: #1, 2, 3, 4 & 5Desired Outcome: Keep public abreast of planning developments; reinforce positive

attitudes and behaviors regarding conservation and nonpointprevention; share successes and publicize events.

Actions:2.6. Keep the general public informed about water resource issues.

2.6.a. Develop and update a mailing list of interested parties and related agencies;produce a quarterly newsletter to be distributed by mail, at public meetingsand community events.

Evaluation: Include occasional feedback (clip and mail) forms in newsletter; tabulateresults, and make adjustments in content.

2.6.b. Provide regular press releases on planning-related items and water resourceissues to newspapers, radio, and cable-



access television stations, as well as to organizational and agencynewsletters.

2.6.c. Produce a three to five part series of newspaper articles on the planningprocess, critical water resource issues, and what actions individuals cantake to protect water resources.

2.6.d. Install travelling water conservation display and informational materials athome shows, fairs and other community events as well as in public spacessuch as libraries and city halls.

3. Programs for irrigation water users and farmersTarget Audience: Commercial farmersMessage: #l, 2 & 3Desired Outcome: Reduction of water use & nonpoint prevention.Actions:3.1. Sponsor a workshop for irrigation water users emphasizing current water

conservation strategies; provide technical assistance far conversion to moreefficient irrigation methods, and provide cost sharing or subsidy programs tofacilitate conversion for commercial operations.

Evaluation: Meter water use before and after installing conservation practices.3.1.a. Coordinate with Dungeness Agriculture Water Users Association to

distribute a regular newsletter to commercial and hobby farmers containinginformation on conservation and nonpoint best management practices(BMPs) and technical assistance programs, reports on BMPs undertaken bylandowners, and updates on water resource planning processes.

3.1.b. Establish a model demonstration commercial farm in each countyincorporating water conservation and nonpoint BMPs; publicize it, andarrange workshops and tours for commercial farm operators.



Evaluation: Keep records of groups visiting site, media coverage, and conservationplan/technical assistance requests resulting from site.3.1.c. Continue "Conservation Farm of the Year" awards for commercial

operations and promote recognition in newsletters and media.

Target Audience: Small (noncommercial) farmersMessage: #l, 2, 3, 4 & 5Desired Outcome: Reduction of water use, nonpoint prevention, and habitat

improvement.

Actions:3.2. Establish a model demonstration small farm incorporating state of the art water

conservation and nonpoint prevention best management practices; publicize it,and arrange workshops and tours for small farm owners.

Evaluation: Keep records of groups visiting site, media coverage, and conservationplan/technical assistance requests resulting from site.3.2.a. Develop programs for horse groups (4-H, Back Country Horsemen,

etc.) involving presentations and demonstrations of BMPs for pastureand waste management and stream protection; make informationalmaterials available at tack shops.

Target Audience: Landscape and design companies, nurseries, and home landscapers

Message: #2, 3 & 4Desired Outcome: Reduction of water use, nonpoint prevention, and habitat protection.

Actions:3.3.a. Utilize Master Gardeners demonstration garden to conduct low water use, native

plant and landscaping for wildlife workshops for commercial landscapers,landscape designers, and home landscapers; incorporate drip irrigation systemfrom model farm.3.3.a. Conduct brief presentations to store owners and managers and make

educational brochures on landscaping available at nurseries and gardensupply stores.



4. Programs for Decision MakersTarget Audience: Elected officials, advisory commissions and agency representativesMessage: # 1Desired Outcome: Awareness of process; RPG goals reflected in

management decisions; knowledge of existingwater law and policies.

Actions:4.1. Conduct workshops on the D-Q planning process: issues, concerns, and

opportunities for county commissioners, planning and shoreline advisory boards,city officials, city councils, and state resource agency professionals working inboth counties.

Evaluation: Note if invited back.4.1.a. Develop a water policy briefing booklet and distribute to all key decision

makers.4.1.b. Keep government officials apprised of developments and policy

recommendations of the RPG.

Target Audience: Resource educatorsMessage: # 1Desired Outcome: Cooperation and coordination among agencies regarding water

resource programs; awareness of D-Q project, design andimplementation of programs that encompass D-Q goals.

Actions:4.2. Arrange for an intern to carry out a comprehensive survey of agencies, entities,

school districts, and non-governmental organizations engaged in water resourceeducation in the two county area; conduct a complete assessment of projectededucational programs and funding needs for each agency, and develop a long-termstrategy for interagency coordination of programs, funding mechanisms, andevaluation.

4.2.a. Conduct regular planning sessions for water resource educators in bothcounties to coordinate activities and



share resources; schedule annual or semiannual one-day conferences for waterresource educators to plan long-range educational strategies, share successes,and coordinate funding requests.

5. Programs for Real Estate Agents, New Residents, andVisitors

Target Audience: RealtorsMessage: #1, 2, 3 & 4Outcome: Understanding of process, issues, willingness to

transmit information to clients.Actions:5.1. Conduct presentations to Realtor associations outlining planning process, goals

and issues, and request assistance in getting informational materials to newresidents; fallow up with scheduled visits to offices to distribute educationalmaterials and provide additional information to agents.

Target Audience: New residentsMessage: #2, 3 & 5Desired Outcome: Reduction of water use and nonpoint prevention.Actions:5.2. Prepare information packets for new home buyers containing educational materials

on water conservation, septic systems, nonpoint prevention in homes and yards,and septic system stickers; distribute through realtors, title companies, orhomeowners associations.5.2.a. Establish model water conservation homes in both counties and preparetours demonstrating how to install low-flow fixtures, inspect toilet for leaks,landscape with drought-resistant native plants, etc.; train volunteers to conducttours.

Target Audience: Visitors to area



Message: #2 & 3Desired Outcome: Conserve water use and prevent pollution while boating/recreating.

Actions:5.3. Work with tourism and visitors' bureaus to develop informational displays and

materials on the need to be mindful of water conservation while visiting the area.5.3.a. Promote water conservation programs for guests at area hotels and bed

and breakfasts; develop water conservation information materials for usein these businesses.

6. Programs for School groupsTarget Audience: TeachersMessage: #2, 3 & 4Desired Outcome: Understanding of issues and desire to include

water resource education into curricula.Actions:6.1. Sponsor inservice trainings on water resources curricula for teachers, and provide

follow up in-class assistance and materials to utilize curricula units and tie-in tonew and existing stream and habitat restoration projects; develop or adapt existingcurricula to stress life cycle and habitat needs of wild salmon.6.1.a. Develop a Mentor Teacher Network involving local, state and federal

agencies which will provide workshops, training sessions and classroomsupport and materials for teachers, as well as funds for substitute teachers,transportation, and coordination for one teacher from each school in bothcounties to participate in intensive curriculum training, then serve asmentors for other teachers in their schools.

Evaluation: Survey teachers and school administrators yearly.6.1.b. Develop a locally based integrated K-12 watershed curriculum allowing

teachers to tie course elements to components of students' homewatersheds and nurture a broad-based sense of stewardship.

6.1.c. Make watershed relief models and groundwater models available for usein classrooms and provide in-class



assistance for teachers to incorporate these into curricula programs6.1.d. Support agricultural programs in local high schools and assist with water

resource protection and conservation programs in Ag. tech. classes.

Target Audience: Students, Grades K through 8Message: #2,3,4,& 5Desired Outcome: Basic understanding of watershed process and awareness of the need

for conservation, pollution prevention, and habitat protection andenhancement; set examples for parents.

Actions:6.2. Support existing "Salmon in the Classroom" programs for elementary and middle

schools in both counties; seek funding to initiate programs in schools wishing toparticipate; sponsor programs for students in each school stressing the need topreserve wild salmon runs and protect and restore habitat.

6.2.a. Support shellfish and watershed educational program in Sequim andestablish a similar program for 3-8 grade in Quilcene.

6.2.b. Support school-sponsored stream and wetland habitat restoration projects inboth counties.

6.2.c. Coordinate inter-school district and inter-county exchanges so students canexperience the types of environmental programs developed in other schoolsand broaden their water resources education opportunities for all students inthe planning area. Fund transportation and cost associated with teachingassistants or volunteers.

Evaluation: Students can write reports, create artwork, or give presentations on what theylearned.

Target Audience: Students, Grades 9 through 12Message: #1,2,3, & 4Desired Outcome: An overall sense of water resource stewardship and active

participation in conservation,



pollution prevention, and habitat restoration programs.

Actions:6.3. Support the Conservation District's "Envirothon" environmental education

competition, and publicize students' participation.6.3.a. Provide speakers and technical assistance to high school environmental

clubs like Sequim's "Blue Sky," and assist high school science classes andother groups with water conservation, habitat restoration and monitoringprojects; provide faculty advisors with information, technical assistanceand coordination among agencies.

6.3.b. Work with high school science teachers to incorporate water resourceeducation into 9-I2 science curricula.

Target Audience: Youth groupsMessage: #2, 3, 4 & 5Desired Outcome: Direct group activities into water resource protection projects.

Actions:6.4. Coordinate with scout groups, 4-H, church groups and others to provide education

and technical assistance for groups to take on stewardship and restorationprojects; seek funding to cover materials and transportation costs and facilitatepermitting process.

Evaluation: Develop evaluation standards on a project-by-project basis.



7. Programs for Area Businesses(Also see actions 2.3 and 2.3A)

Target Audience: RestaurantsMessage: #2Desired Outcome: Restaurant owners and customers conserve water while using

restaurant facilities.Actions:7.1. Develop posters for display in restaurant restrooms illustrating the need to save water

(make connection with fish and wildlife) and stressing simple bathroom conservationpractices. Posters can also be used in other businesses. 7.1.a. Develop attractivestand-up cards for restaurant tables with a simple water conversation message andphone number for information.

Target Audience: Vendors of garden and landscape chemicals, plumbing fixtures, andautomotive products

Message: #2 & 3Desired Outcome: Vendors understand conservation and nonpoint issues, and dispense

education materials to customers.Actions:7.2. Develop or adapt informational materials for home landscapers, do-it-yourself home

repairers, and those who maintain their own vehicles.7.2.a. Conduct brief presentations to store owners and managers and make

educational brochures on the above topics available at nurseries, garden andlandscape supply, pluming supply and automotive supply stores.

Target Audience: Businesses (general)Message: #2 & 3



Desired Outcome: Foster a sense of water resource stewardship amongarea businesses; enlist businesses to promote waterresource protection.

Actions:7.3. Encourage chambers of commerce to initiate award programs for water resource

stewardship (ie: "Environmental Business of the Year") to recognize outstandingstewardship practices by area businesses.7.3.a. Conduct workshops for environmentally regulated businesses informing

them of their requirements and offering information and technicalassistance in meeting water quality requirements.

7.3.b. Work with local businesses and festival committees to integrate waterresource awareness into area festivals (Irrigation and Rhododendronfestivals, Hadlock Days, Quilcene Fair, Discovery Bay Salmon

Appendix DHabitat

Definition & Description

Habitat – Definition and Description D.1

Appendix DHabitat – Definition and Description

The following was written by Steve Keller, WDFW, for the DQ Project Jefferson County WorkGroup, 1994.

Salmon Habitat - FreshwaterIn freshwater, highly productive salmon streams exhibit the following characteristics:

• unobstructed access to spawning and rearing areas as adults and similar free passage to thesea as juveniles;

• stable winter streamflows and abundant summer streamflow;• clean, cool, well-oxygenated water;• an instream abundance of food;• relatively sediment-free stream bed gravel for spawning and insect production;• stable stream configuration;• resting and hiding cover from predators and competitors.

Habitat quality and quantity is affected naturally by weather, streamflow, and geologic events.Human's activities also have profound effects upon habitat.

Fish are also reared in artificial facilities, "hatcheries." However, these facilities are no substitutefor productive habitat. Water quality requirements are more stringent at hatcheries and rearingponds than in nature. Regardless, these facilities depend upon good natural habitats becauseultimately the fish are released to the wild for the remainder of their life cycle.

Dungeness-Quilcene Water Management Plan

D.2 Habitat – Definition and Description

Salmon Habitat - Marine WatersIn marine water, productive salmon habitats include:

• unobstructed shallow nearshare migratory pathways, especially for juvenile fish duringseaward migration;

• clean, cool, well-oxygenated, unpolluted water;• access to shallow nearshore beaches and marine wetlands for feeding and avoidance of

predators;• an abundance of food;• clean, uncontaminated bottom sediments or gravel.

These habitat characteristics are the result of the shoreline vegetation, coastal erosionalprocesses and tidal currents and are also influenced by our upland and in-water activities.

Riparian AreasIn freshwater, riparian areas playa major part in providing and maintaining suitable habitatfor salmon. Riparian areas are the bands of vegetation bordering a body of water, usually astream, which influence the water and are in turn influenced by the water. Riparianvegetation varies with climate. In wet climates it is a mixture of conifer (cedar, hemlock, fir,spruce) and deciduous (alder, maple, cottonwood) trees, intermingled with shrubs andgrasses. In drier climates trees are found in higher numbers in riparian zones than on theuplands, or the riparian zone will be comprised only of grasses or grasses and shrubs. Lossof any one layer of vegetation impacts the functional ability of the other layers, andeventually the corridor itself. Riparian zones have been altered, and in many casesobliterated by man's activities. Protection and enhancement of these zones is necessary forthe protection of fish life.

Riparian Area Contribution to Salmon HabitatRiparian areas create and maintain salmon habitat by stabilizing stream banks from erosion,by contributing hiding and resting cover in the form of undercut banks and instream woodydebris, by affording access to habitat, by moderating stream temperatures, by capturingsediments, by moderating flood flaws and metering summer low flows, and by providing orcontributing to food items.



1. Bank Stabilization:Large trees, especially conifers such as cedar, fir and hemlock in riparian zones provide localchannel stability and contribute to erosional resistance, which allows other shrubby vegetation toestablish. Soil binds to the complex root structure of riparian plants resulting in improved bankstability. The deeper and more extensive the root system, the greater the stability.

2. Hiding and Resting cover:Large organic debris (LOD) in the form of trees, tree parts, branches, and root wads, is recruitedto the stream from bank vegetation. Pools (deeper, slow-moving waters) in which fish rest, hideand feed, are typically formed by LOD. Off-channel habitats are often created and maintained byLOD. LOD and overhanging bank vegetation provide structural cover to protect juvenilesalmonids from predators, and to allow separation from other competing or predator fish.

3. Access:LOD provides "stair-steps" along steeper gradient streams, which allow fish to access upperstream reaches by a series of small jumps as opposed to swimming long distances against swiftcurrents.

4. Spawning Gravel:LOD in channels helps to sort, clean and stabilize spawning gravels.

5. Sediment and Water Quality Control:Water quality and spawning gravel is improved as sediments are trapped by bank vegetation. Theriparian zone acts as a buffer strip between polluted run-off from upland areas and the stream.Phosphorous and nitrogen, typically from fertilizers, and heavy metals or other pollutants whichattach to sediments, are carried by surface run-off to the stream. Velocity of surface run-off isreduced as it flows through riparian vegetation, particularly root masses and grasses. As velocityis reduced, sediments settle out before flow enters the stream, and phosphorous and nitrogen areutilized by plants in the flow path. Consequently, water quality of surface run-off is improvedprior to discharge into the stream.



6. Energy Dissipation:Bank vegetation and instream LOD dissipate stream energy. During overbank flows energy isdissipated as water collides with riparian shrubs and trees. LOD incorporated into the channelforms obstructions to flow and slows velocities locally. The flow lose energy while scouring thebed or banks lateral and/or downstream of the obstructions. When energy is dissipated graduallyalong the stream course, downstream erosion is minimized.

7. Streamflow:Vegetation helps to attenuate flood flows by reducing velocity and trapping sediments. Assediments are deposited, stream banks are built resulting in mare channel stability and a mediumupon which more vegetation can take root. Riparian corridors effectively increase groundwaterdischarge as well as subsurface groundwater recharge. As sediment deposition and bank buildingcontinues to occur, and vegetation continues to be established, the water table is effectivelyraised. Increased water storage can be achieved during wet seasons, and therefore, more flow canoccur during the dry season. Perennial flow can subsequently be reestablished or maintained withadequate riparian vegetation.

8. Stream Temperature:Riparian vegetation, particularly upper and middle story height shrubs, brush and trees, helpsattenuate both winter summer stream temperatures. Lethal or near lethal water temperatures arealready a serious problem in many of our salmon streams. The effects of disease and infectionare magnified in higher water temperatures which result in increased moralities for both adultand juvenile fish. Warm temperatures can block migration. Delays to either the downstreamsmolt migration or to adults returning to spawn leads to increased mortality either directly orindirectly. Adults which cannot reach preferred spawning beds will spawn in sub-standardreaches contributing to lowered egg and fry survival

9. Food Source:Terrestrial insects, a key prey item far juvenile salmomids, fall into the stream from bankvegetation. Leaf litter and large organic debris also support terrestrial and aquatic arthropods. Asthe leaf litter and larger



organic debris decompose, a nutrient base is provided for other prey organisms. This processprovides a vital link in the food chain and the lack of it can be a limiting factor in fishproduction.

StreamflowAlthough stream flows vary from season to season, they must remain fairly constant tosupport a healthy stream. Very low water levels during salmon runs and spawning seasonmake travel difficult or impossible. Juvenile fish rearing streams are dependent upon stableabundant flows for growth and survival. Water levels which are too high damage or destroyhabitat and displace, strand or cause fish moralities. Eggs deposited within the streambedduring spawning can be scoured out or stranded by shifting channels. During heavy rains,even a healthy riparian zone and stream system will not prevent flood erosion. However,under natural stream conditions flood erosion creates good in-stream habitat. Flood waterswash out gravel banks creating spawning beds. They wash trees, logs, and stumps into thestream creating hiding, resting and feeding places. Finally, they wash out banks, causingtrees to lean out over the water cooling it and creating feeding and hiding places. Undernatural conditions a stream may have any or all of the following: side channels, meanders,ox bows, associated wetlands and flood plains. These features slow and temporarily storeflood waters coming down the stream and offer fish and other water dwellers a refuge fromrushing flood waters. So, the stream can flood and cause some erosion without destroyinghabitat and killing stream dwellers.

Alteration of a watershed from forestry, agriculture or urbanization can impose dramaticchanges to stream hydrology, often overwhelming the buffering ability of the riparian zoneto protect the stream Increases in channel width and depth, increased bank erosion anddownstream sediment loading, instability of LOD, and loss of summer flows are allattributable to altered hydrology. In response we often take protective measures such asarmoring stream banks with rock rip-rap, straightening the channel, in the processeliminating riparian vegetation which reduces or eliminates the stream's natural flood controlabilities. Under these conditions, flood waters rush down the stream with unnaturally highvolume and force. The stream transfers this energy to



any part of the stream which is not armored, causing severe bank erosion, washing outspawning beds and in-stream habitat (such as woody debris and even over hangingvegetation) and killing in-stream animals. Flood waters may also wash armoring along thebank into the main channel. This decreases the channel capacity and creates greater erosionforces on the bank.

WetlandsWetlands serve several major functions in a stream ecosystem. Wetlands provide substratefor the production of preferred food organisms and shelter from predators for juvenilesalmonids during their spring out-migration. In the case of coho salmon, which rear infreshwater for up to 18 months before migrating seaward, wetlands serve as critical averwintering habitat. Lack of over winter habitat can limit coho salmon production. Wetlandsalso provide groundwater recharge and help maintain water quality when wetland plantsfilter and settle out pollutants.

Shallow Water Habitat in Large Streams and MarineWaters

Each spring, after completion of their freshwater incubation and rearing stages, juvenilesalmon begin a journey (outmigration) to the marine waters. Some stocks remain in yr nearto Puget Sound, many travel hundreds or thousands of miles primarily into the north PacificOcean, feeding and maturing prior to their return to their stream of origin to spawn and die.While in lower stream reaches and brackish estuarine waters they undergo a physiologicaladaptation to saltwater. Juvenile salmonids migrating downstream stay very close to shore.This behavior affords them maximum survival opportunity. The behavior of your salmonidsis designed to hold the fish in nearshore shallow water areas where they can simultaneouslymaximize their growth and be physically removed from offshore predators. Intertidalwetland vegetation also provides both substrate for the production of preferred foodorganisms and shelter from predators. These intertidal wetlands also provide both groundwater recharge and help maintain water quality through biofiltration.



When food resources are abundant, young salmonids attain very high growth rates. Highgrowth rates are especially important since increasing body size decrease the number ofpredators that can prey upon these fish. Consequently, structures and activities that disruptthis growth strategy affects their survival. Since the inception of development along theshores of Washington streams, considerable amounts of critical habitat have been lost due tobulk heading (hardened bank protection), filling, dredging, overeater construction, and otherimpacts associated with growth and development, and agricultural from crops to livestockgrazing. These impacts have reduced:

• the reproductive potential of those species dependent on this habitat for spawning;• the area available for juvenile salmonids to rear, feed, and migrate;• and the area available for juvenile salmonids to physiologically adapt from fresh to

saltwater.

ShadingAlthough shade cast by bankline vegetation is usually beneficial, the shadow cast byovereater and floating structures, as narrow as eight feet in width, located in the nearshoreshallow water habitats can be detrimental, especially when it results in the loss of importantaquatic vegetation. This shadow can reduce the productivity of food organisms important tojuvenile salmonids and other fish, by reducing or eliminating the primary productivity thatthese organisms depend upon. In addition, this shadow disrupts juvenile salmonid migrationalong the shoreline. These small fish avoid dark areas under overwater and floatingstructures, and are forced offshore into deeper waters. If young salmonids are forces intooffshore areas before reaching an appropriate size, their growth rates are expected to declinebecause of the lack of suitable food. Besides reducing growth, and therefore survival,forcing small salmonids out of their preferred nearshore shallow water areas increases theirexposure to potential predators. Diving ducks, and a number of fish species that prey onjuvenile salmonids, such as squawfish, bass, and larger salmonids, including juvenile cohoand steelhead, are typically found in offshore deeper water areas. If small salmonids areforces offshore before they reach sufficient size, they will become more available to suchpredators.

Appendix E

Environmental Caucus CommentsWetlands & Wildlife

Environmental Caucus Comments - Wetlands and Wildlife E.1

Appendix EEnvironmental Caucus Comments

Wetland and Wildlife

The following two documents were written by and represent the views of M. Pat Wennekens,PhD, of the Clallam County Environmental Caucus, June 1994. These have been referenced inChapter 6: East Clallam County Recommendations, C9 and CIO.

WetlandsWetlands together with riparian, riverine, streams, estuaries and shore habitats encompass thegreatest expanse of the surface waters of the D/Q Pilot study area.

• There is no single, correct, indisputable, ecologically sound definition for wetlands, primarilybecause of the diversity of wetlands and because the demarcation between dry and wetenvironment lies along a continuum (USFWS, Classification of Wetlands and DeepwaterHabitats of the US, I979).

• Ecologically wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factordetermining the nature of soil development and the types of plants and animal communitiesliving in the soil and on its surface.

• Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water tableis usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.

• Wetlands are "Waters of the State" and as such require full consideration to maintain andprotect the quality - quantity of their waters.


E.2 Environmental Caucus Comments -- Wetlands

• Wetlands are one of the most important component of the aquatic resources of the D!N areaFor example, within the Dinginess River lower watershed proper, wetlands alone occupy2.5% (4,574 acres) of the watershed (USFWS National Wetland Inventory [1981], ClallamCounty selected coastal wetlands inventory [ 1985] and River Basin Team, July 1991). TheDungeness River lower reaches has the greatest acreage of wetlands (15°10 or 1.236 acres);Gierin Creek sub-watershed has the highest percentage of land covered by wetlands (16%).

• Wetland hierarchical classification subdivides into five major systems (Fig. 1):

Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Laeustrine, Palustrine.

• Wetland classification is based solely upon emergent and hydrophytic vegetation.Classification does not account for the' submerged vegetation which provides a critical foodsupply, shelter and reproduction substrates for a large variety of invertebrates. Wetlanddegradation and losses cannot be accounted solely on the basis of emerged hydrophyticvegetation. The D/Q document must underscore that fact.

• The D/Q document fails to address two of the most important wetlands systems of the D/Qarea, the marine and estuarine systems. It also lacks reference to the lacustrine (important inJefferson County system. The document cannot be considered complete until extensivecoverage of these very important wetlands is added.

• The "no net loss" necessitates that wetland water quality - quantity requirements be fullymaintained when mitigation, restoration, creation of "new wetlands, minimization of impacts,compensatory mitigation measures are being acted upon. The D/Q program needs to addresshow a "no net loss" of wetland water quality - quantity can be achieved whenever waterconservation and other water "saving" measures involve wetlands.



• "Mimicking Nature" corresponding to natural cycles of wetness, flooding, drying of wetlandsis an overriding requirement whenever corrective or compensatory measures are taken toprotect "no net loss" of wetlands aquatic resources. The D/Q document needs broadening toaddress the kinds of compensatory - corrective measures mandated to protect the quality -quantity of wetlands waters beyond those resulting from irrigation ditches flowmanipulations.

• Identification and classification of wetlands is based upon three criteria: water saturation,degree of soil wetness and presence of hydrophytic vegetation. The water/soil/hydrophytesclassification was devised as convenient "regulatory" tool (Plants are sedentary in contrast toroaming wildlife). Apart from the physical attributes attached to wetlands (flood control,sediment traps, etc.), the overwhelming wildlife functions of wetlands become mired in theregulatory maze.

• Water dependent and water related wildlife cannot survive without wetlands. The lost anddegradation of wetland habitats, locally as well as nationwide accounts for the lost anddisappearance of hundreds of species. In the D/Q area, the sum total of all wetlands, fromfraction of acre to tens of acres comprised the aquatic ecosystem supporting the highdiversity of resident and migratory wildlife (taken in its broadest meaning). For example, wetmeadows during their cycles of wetness support spawning and rearing amphibians (thedisappearance of salamanders is being looked at as long term indicator of environmentaldeterioration).

• Wetlands are critical to the survival of migratory wildlife. Wetland protection must integratethe biological protection requirements of the Migratory Birds Act (MBTA) and associatedUK, Japan, USSR international treaties for "the protection of migratory birds and theirhabitat."

• Wetland protection also means wildlife protection. Whenever permits to develop in wetlandenvironment are considered, both the permittee and the regulator have the responsibility toaccount for the resident - migratory wildlife functions of a given wetland.



• Times are changing and the D/Q as a pilot program needs to take the lead in counseling forwildlife inventories in wetland management. The present wetland classification practice mustinclude the wildlife functions and values of the wetlands.

• The wildlife agencies usually act in an advisory rather than in a regulatory capacity to protectwetlands aquatic resources (except for endangered species and WDFW hydraulic permit toprotect fish). As a "Pilot Program", the D/Q water resources management plan needs toemphasize that preservation of wetland water quality -quantity and address the "beneficialuses of water essential to the survival of water dependent/water related diversity of "wildlife"(as defined in WDFW Title 77 RCW, Chap. 77.08.010).

• The D/Q Pilot program needs to stress the importance to implement the WDFW "PriorityHabitats and Species" recommendations underscoring the broad diversity of "non-gamespecies of the State requiring special attention to preserve their welfare and longevity.

• As a "Pilot Program", the D/Q water resources management plan needs to underscore that thepreservation of the quality - quantity of wetland "Wildlife Habitat defined as:

Waters of the State used by fish, other aquatic life and wildlife for any life history stage oractivity. [Chapter 173 - 173.201.025 (17) WAC] is essential.

• While application of "Buffer Zones" rests primarily with land-use and property rightsconsiderations, application of "Shoreline and Critical Area" planning must consider that anumber of species of water related/dependent wildlife utilize a larger area than thatdelineated by "regulatory" buffer zones (eg. eagles, blue herons, tree ducks, etc.). The D/Qplan should address the "Buffer Zone" expanded land use needs for water dependent/waterrelated wildlife.

• The critical ecological importance of wetlands cannot be overemphasized. The D/Q WaterResources Education Plan, must



include an objective and proactive education program that will educate on the broader context ofall facets of wetlands aquatic resources.

Wildlife: Present and Future -- an OverviewThe onset of the 21st Century is only less than 6 years away. As a "pilot project", the D/Q waterresources management program gives us the opportunity to reflect upon from our past, learnfrom our mistakes and plan for the future. Public pressure for a healthy and biologically fruitfulenvironment is forcing re-examination of our "traditional" practices of habitat/wildlifemanagement. Program such as the GMA spurs the needs to divest from the past and implementnew approaches to land and natural resources conservation and management.

Wildlife is a unique natural resource. Under western managerial and conservation standards, itsgreat diversity and wide ranging life requirements, does not readily adapt to the maze of strictboundaries and land "rights" imposed by western ownership practices.

Wildlife entities by themselves have no "rights" within the context of western property "right"practices. It is however held in common for the good of both national and international citizens.Being held in common however means that only an overseeing national, state and local entitiesmust take the responsibility to manage and protect the biological entities.

Only under specific circumstances (e.g. parks, refuges) is the wildlife habitat held in common forthe enjoyment of the citizens. Apart from regulations and statutes for the management of speciesof interest, the habitat essential to wildlife survival (taken in its broadest connotation), is givenless than marginal protection.

As initially promoted by the D/ Chelan Pilot Project, major environmental - biologicalconsiderations were given to the endangered plight of salmonid ecosystems and to the urgency torestore the health of fish habitats and stocks



Grossly underplayed however was consideration of the water needs to maintain and protect thewelfare of wildlife and its habitat. Better than 85 % of wildlife in the Pilot Study area is eitherdirectly or indirectly dependent upon the marine-fresh water ecosystems of the D/Q area.

Under "Wildlife Management, (Chapter 5 - Regional Strategies and Recommendations, p. 52),the Plan states under R. 12: "Wildlife is recognized as an important component of bioregionalecosystems and should receive protection on both local and state level". Recognition of theimportance of wildlife is a recurrent theme and the desire to maintain and protect "Wildlife" isreadily acknowledged. Lacking however is an insight of the processes by which such "desire"will be accommodate.

Wildlife is a highly mobile and biologically diverse natural resource. The high species diversity,mobility and biological demands placed by wildlife upon the environment makes it difficult todefine wildlife holistically.

The management and regulatory mandates of the natural resource agencies (e.g. US-DOI, DNRare in an almost constant "conflict of interest" whenever resource extraction must be balancedagainst wildlife habitat protection. Such conflict have led to weak or ineffectual habitatprotection and large scale demise of wildlife habitats. Similarly, under development pressureshabitat usually gives ground to "growth" to satisfy human endeavors.

Defining Wildlife and Wildlife HabitatThe term "wildlife" is variously defined and often includes reference to habitat. The language ofits definition depends upon the missions and regulatory mandate of a particular resource agency.

1- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Title 77 RCW - Game and Fish -Chap. 77.08.010 defines "Wildlife" as:

• All species in the animal kingdom whose members exist in Washington in a wild state.• It includes but is not limited to mammals. birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates.



• The term "wildlife" does not include feral domestic mammals, the family Muridea of theorder Rodentia (old world rats and mice),

• nor those fish, shellfish and marine invertebrates classified by the director of fisheries.• The term "wildlife" includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife

members.

The definition is primarily utilitarian, reflecting the traditional mission of the agency to manageharvestable wildlife as individual species.

2 - Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Wildlife Habitat DefinitionChapter 173-201 WAC - Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington- Section 173.201.025 (17) defines WILDLIFE HABITAT as: Waters of the State used by fish,other aquatic life and wildlife for any life history stage or activity. The DOE definition onlyconsiders water as the habitat, not the aquatic environment as a whole. It reflects the Departmentof Ecology authority to protect both the quality and quantity of water necessary to maintainwater dependent and aquatic related wildlife.

3 - US Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (USFWCA)Under the Federal US Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. & 661 et sea) the terms"wildlife" and "wildlife resources" are defined as:

• Fish, birds, mammals and all other classes of wild animals and• All types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is dependent.• The inclusion of aquatic and land vegetation incorporates an holistic habitat - ecological

entity to the definition of wildlife.

The USFW Coordination Act specifies that wildlife resources must be given equal weight withthose socio-economic and economic values whenever a Corps of Engineers 404 permit isrequested. The recommendation is however advisory and its implementation left to the discretionof the COE.



Wildlife and Changing Times

1- "Tradition" in Wildlife ManagementTraditionally Wildlife management had emphasized a species approach to management andconservation. Main focus has been upon population husbandry of "hook-shoot and trap"harvestable species. Protection of habitat, while usually mandated as part of the wildlifeagencies mission was mostly relegates to the care of agencies with environmental protectionmandates (e.g. EPA, DOE).

2 - The WDFW Hydraulic Permit (HP)The Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Permit (HP) servesas a WDFW regulatory tool to protect fresh and marine habitats from disturbance anddegradation. Under current WDFW regulations however, HP applies only to fish preferablysalmonids habitats. The HP does not protect "non-fish wildlife habitats. Attempts to includewildlife into the HP have been so far unsuccessful.

3 - Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MTBA) - International Treaties for the Protection ofMigratory Birds and Their Environment.The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements domestically a series of treaties providing forprotection of international migratory birds and their habitat. The migratory birds to be protectedfall into three distinct categories - migratory game species - migratory non-game species andmigratory insectivorous species (C. Coggins and S.T.Patti - The Resurrection and Expansion ofthe Migratory Bird Treaty Act - U. of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 50, pp.165-206, 19'79).

Treaties as well as federal statutes are the"' supreme law of the land and override contraryadministrative practices of state (and local) laws (ibid).

The MTBA is a conservation statute protective of not merely birds but also public health andwelfare (environment). The conservation of migratory birds promotes ecosystem integrity andgermplast conservation (Germplast conservation refers to the necessity of maintaining a largepool of genetic characters from diverse species for the purpose of providing variations forevolutionary change and



adaptation); [S. Margolin - Liability Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act - Ecology LawQuarterly, Vol. 7, pp.989, 1979].

Seen primarily as a "superhunting" law throughout most of its history, the MTBA is now beingviewed in an environmental protection context, being implemented more broadly Theenvironmental implication of the MTBA becomes most important when protection of aquaticquality-quantity of wetlands and other aquatic habitats utilized by water dependent and waterrelated migratory species becomes a land use and property rights issue.

4 - Governor's Executive Order (EO 94-04)Changing times are reflected in the I April 1994 Governor's Executive Order (EO 94-04) - WSR94-08-088 - on "Coordinated Watershed Planning, Implementation and Restoration for Fish andWildlife'". EO 94-04 reflects the finding of the 1994 Legislature of a "compelling need toprovide coordinated planning, implementation and restoration of natural resources andenvironmental protection on a watershed basis".

EO 94-04 sanctions "whole system - ecosystem" approach to manage aquatic, wildlife habitats,land and the broad mix of natural resources.

4 - WDFW "Priority Habitats and Species," (PHS)On October 1993 the WDFW updated its Summer 1991 "Species of Concern List" non-gameprogram document into a "Priority Habitats and Species management document. The addition of"Habitats" as a critical criteria for the management of wildlife shows the WDFW shift fromtraditional species management to the broader "Habitat-Ecosystem" management of wildlife.Designating habitat and species as priority represents a proactive action to help prevent speciesfrom becoming threatened endangered or eventually extinct.

The WDFW document underscores the necessity to proactively and urgently address and counterthe accelerating degradation and loss of aquatic habitat (especially wetlands) and interdependentwildlife in the D/Q area.



5 - Water dependent - water related "Non-game" species –Water dependent and water related "Non-Game" wildlife are a crucial .local, national andinternational resources. The aquatic ecosystems (wetlands, riparian, shorelines and estuaries) areutilized by diverse assemblages of marine and land flora and large populations of resident andmigratory wildlife (taken in its broader context).

The majority of the wildlife species fall within the "non-game" category. While the Dungeness -Quilcene water resources management stresses the rehabilitation of salmonid stocks in theDungeness and other streams, the pilot project status of the program provides the impetus topromote for a proactive protection and conservation for all water dependent and water relatedwildlife.

"Growth Management" mandates that special considerations be given to protect, conserve andmaintain the aquatic quality/ quantity of wildlife habitats. "Growth Management" also mandatesthat new imaginative land, water and natural resources management planning and thinking beproactively applied to prevent and redress the "growth" impacts upon wildlife and associatedhabitat.

6 - "Urban" WildlifeGrowth and urbanization brings major changes in the wildlife composition of "unnatural" landsand shores. Urbanization favors influx and settlement of urban tolerant or adapted wildlife. TheD/Q Plan needs to insure that Growth management gives prime consideration to the aquaticneeds of water related/water dependent urban wildlife Riparian/reverine habitat protection andrestoration, wetland protection, shoreline parks and green belts, etc. can compensate from theimpacts of growth upon the "quality of life".

The Dungeness - Quilcene Water Resources Management Pilot Study Program is at thethreshold of the 21st Century. It is formulated within an era in which the citizens want departurefrom the traditional practices of husbanding wildlife. The D/Q pilot program must recognizethat wildlife has "rights" to clean and plentiful water to perform its mufti biological functions.



Recommendations:The Dungeness - Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan, as a Pilot Program must address:

• Within the context of "Shared Sacrifice the quality/ quantity "rights of water dependent/waterrelated wildlife must be preserved.

• "Wildlife" and "Wildlife Habitats" values must be socially, economically andenvironmentally considered as important as those of forestry and agriculture.

• The fact that 85 % of the wildlife in the D/Q area is either directly dependent or closelyinter-related to the water resources of the area.

• "Non-game" wildlife as a dominant resource mandates full protection and conservation ofaquatic quality/ quantity for its habitat.

• Inventories and census of water dependent/water related species and their habitats must beperformed to create a "Wildlife Data Base" as biological component of the "Data Inventoryand Management" program for the D/Q area.

• Research on the seasonal and spatial distribution, habitat preference, concentrations, stagingof wildlife" in the D/Q area must be performed and the results entered as a " BiologicalResearch and Data Management" component of the Pilot study.

• The D/Q program must insure that the WDFW "Priority Habitats and Species"recommendations are proactively applied to preserve and maintain wildlife and associatedHabitat resources in the D/Q area.

• Specific curricula on "Wildlife Biology and Wildlife Habitat Ecology" be instituted in theschools to educate and train . individuals in ecosystem wildlife/habitat management. Primeemphasis to be placed upon "non-game" and "Priority Habitats and Species".

Appendix F

Stream Modifications

Stream Modifications F.1

Appendix FStream Modifications

Gravel TrapsRefer to Recommendation C.7.3: Channel Stabilization and Gravel Traps in Chapter 6: EastClallam County Recommendations for the RPG recommendations. The following are importantareas that should be considered related to channel stabilization and gravel trap projects.

1. Further analysis of the causes for channel instability should continue. Causes may includegeological events, historical natural landslides, forest practices upstream, low flows causedby irrigation uses and other human impacts.

2. Grave: Because gravel aggradation and channel instability is a problem for land owners andfisheries and may exacerbate low flow problems on the Dungeness River, various types of"gravel traps" have been built or proposed on the river. The on-going gravelextraction andbuilding of traps should be carefully considered beforethey continue to be used to mitigategravel buildup on the river.

a. Research currently being done on their use should becontinued to gain a better understanding of the use and effectsof gravel traps. (Tribe, Wennekens and Enbysk.)b. The proposed watershed council should investigate the useand impacts of gravel extraction/gravel traps and determine iftheir use should be continued.c. The proposed habitat management plan should includemonitoring of existing and future gravel traps as a component.d. A complete map and notebook with gravel trap informationshould be prepared as a part of on-going monitoring of existingand future projects.e. A program should be established for fisheries experts tomonitor and record the use of gravel traps by juvenile and adultfish and possible deleterious impacts on spawning. The current


F.2 Gravel Trap Recommendations

use of gravel traps is experimental and the RPG recommends further study on theeffectiveness and impact of gravel trap projects on the Dungeness River. There is noconsensus in the RPG about whether the use of gravel traps should be continued.

3. A meeting should be called at least annually amongst fisheries experts, the watershed counciland people involved in building and permitting gravel traps to provide an:

a. Evaluation of gravel traps and their impacts on the river and fisheries.b. Evaluation of the cumulative effects of these projects.

4. The following should be considered when allowing or designing gravel traps in theDungeness river:

a. Implications on long-term channel stability including width to depth ratio, erosion rate,and pool/riffle ratio;b. Habitat requirements;c. Sediment impacts with traps separate from flowing streams and egress placement;d. The need for woody debris for cover to protect juvenile fish from predation and adultsfrom human harassment;e. Time of gravel extraction, related to activities of fish cycles; f. An effective reddmarking system to protect spawning areas;g. Requirements for cross sections on river sections with traps at the time of constructionand continuing on a yearly basis; h. Placement and proximity of traps (e.g., not a longseries which might turn into a channel);i. Amount of gravel removal and effects on the river system;

5. The Washington Department of Fisheries & Wildlife (WDFW) should take an active role inmanaging and monitoring the use of gravel traps in the river.

a. WDFW should become the central repository for gravel trapinformation for use in the Hydraulic Permit application process;b. WDFW should make this information available tointerested parties as needed;


Gravel Trap Recommendations F.3

c. Gravel removal should be monitored by WDFW via permit requirements for crosssections and an estimation of volume removed per project.

6. Information and expertise on the design and implementation of gravel traps should bemade available to land owners and operators at all phases of permitting, design andconstruction.

7. Gravel traps and other gravel removal projects should be coordinated with theimplementation of the comprehensive flood management plan.

8. Implementation of other bank and channel stabilization measures as outlined in theDungeness Flood Management Plan should be pursued.

a. Funding for a model bank stabilization projects should be sought.b. Education should be provided to riparian land owners an permitting requirements andfish-friendly bank stabilization techniques.



The following is an excerpt from the Shoreline Management Guidebook, Volume 2: ShorelineMaster Program Handbook, .1994 Edition, by Department of Ecology.

BioengineeringApplicabilityBioengineering is the term given to the practice of using natural vegetative materials to stabilizeshorelines and prevent erosion. This may include use of bundles of stems, root systems, or otherliving plant material; soft gabions, fabric or other soil stabilization techniques; and limited rocktoe protection where appropriate. Bioengineering projects often include fisheries habitatenhancement measures such as anchored logs or root wads in project design. Such techniquesmay be applied to creeks, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and marine waters. Bioengineering may alsobe applied in upland areas away from the immediate shoreline.

The use of bioengineering as a shoreline stabilization technique is seen as an alternative toriprap, concrete and other structural solutions. It provides habitat while maintaining andpreserving the natural character of the shoreline. Bioengineering is the preferred "best practices"choice when considering shoreline stabilization. Combining bioengineering techniques witharmored revetments is also encouraged over singularly employing riprap or other types ofarmored revetment. Many jurisdictions are considering enhancement of existing riprap shorelinesto restore lost riparian/shoreline habitat and public values.

Policies1. All bioengineering projects should ensure that water quality, fish and wildlife habitats and

flood holding capacity are not degraded. Bioengineering projects should be designed andscheduled to minimize impacts to natural resources and to optimize survival of newplantings.

2. Whenever possible, the design of bioengineering projects should incorporateself-maintaining vegetation and materials over those requiring routine maintenance.



3. Bioengineering projects should extend no further waterward than is necessary to achieveintended results.

4. Shoreline stabilization through bioengineering should use native vegetation whereverpossible.

5. Bioengineering projects should include buffers, fencing and/or other measures to avoiddisturbance of the project site by livestock and vehicles.

6. Structural soil stabilization components including riprap, should be kept to a minimum insuch projects and designed to last only until vegetation is well established. Bioengineeringprojects do not typically rely on long-term structural (bank hardening) measures.

7. Bioengineering projects should follow recommended best management practices forestablishing/restoring vegetation in shoreline and riparian areas. Guidance from the SoilConservation Service, the State Departments of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Ecology and localConservation Districts should be considered in project designs.

Regulations

1. The City/County shall require and utilize the following information, in addition to thestandard permit information requirements contained in WAG 173-14-110, in its review of allbioengineering projects.

a. proposed timing of all construction phases of the project,

b. flow analysis, addressing hydrology and hydraulics and identifying expected flood flowscompared with proposed timing of construction activities,

c. existing soil types, bank materials and analysis of slope stability,

d. proposed materials that will be used on-site including rack size, shape and quantity, plantmaterials, soil preparations that provide optimal planting mediums for the vegetationproposed, areas to be seeded, and fencing,

e existing and proposed slope profiles, including location of ordinary high water mark,



f. design of transition areas between bioengineering site and adjacent properties (both upand downstream of project),

g. documentation (including photos) of existing pre-construction shorelinecharacteristics.

2. All bioengineering projects shall use a diverse variety of native plant materials includingtrees, shrubs and grasses, unless demonstrated infeasible for the particular site.

3. All cleared areas shad be replanted following construction and irrigated (if necessary) toensure that within three years time all vegetation is fully reestablished. Areas which fail toadequately reestablish vegetation shall be replanted with approved plant materials until suchtime as the plantings are viable.

4. Bank protection in the form of a buffer zone shall be provided for a minimum of three years.The buffer zone shall exclude livestock, vehicles, and/or other activities that could disturb thesite. The most effective buffer zone protection measure is fencing.

5. All bioengineering projects shall be monitored and maintained as necessary. Areas damagedby pests and/or the elements shaft be promptly repaired.

6. All construction and planting activities shall be scheduled to minimize impacts to waterquality and fish and wildlife aquatic and upland habitat and to optimize survival of newvegetation.



Revetments (Riprap)Applicability

A revetment is a sloped shoreline structure built to protect an existing eroding shoreline or newlyplaced fill against waves, wakes, currents, or weather. Revetments are most commonly built ofrandomly placed boulders (riprap), but may also be built of sand-cement bags, paving or buildingblocks, gabions (rock filled wire baskets), or other systems and materials. The principal featuresof a revetment, regardless of type, are:

1. Heavy armor layer;

2. Filter layer; and

3. Toe protection.



This section deals specifically with the modification activity of revetments. For additionalpolicies and regulations see Shoreline Stabilization, "General Shoreline Modification Provisions"in this chapter.

Policies

1. The use of armored structural revetments should be limited to situations where it isdemonstrated that nonstructural solutions such as bioengineering, setbacks and buffers or anycombination thereof will not provide sufficient shoreline stabilization.

2. The construction and maintenance of revetments should not result in the loss or reduction ofshoreline environmental resource values. If a loss or reduction cannot be avoided, mitigationshould be provided.

3. Revetments should be designed, improved and maintained to provide public access wheneverpossible.

Regulations -- General

1. All forms of revetments shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that does not reducewater quality and/or fisheries habitat.

2. Design of the proposed revetment shall incorporate proper consideration

a. Data on local geophysical conditions;

b. Data on stream flow, velocity, and/or flood capacity; and

c. Effects on adjacent properties.

3 Bank revetments, where permitted, shall be placed at the extreme edge or bank of theshoreline.

4. Design of revetments shall include and provide improved access to public shorelineswhenever possible and appropriate.

5. Revetments must be in support of an allowable shoreline use that is in conformance with theProvisions of this master program, unless it can be demonstrated that such activities arenecessary and in the public interest far the maintenance of shoreline environmental resources.



6. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see Chapter 5) and theEnvironment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6) stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Riprap

1. Riprap shall be constructed using techniques and materials that will enhance naturalshoreline values and functions, including fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetationand aesthetics. The following techniques and materials shall be used:

a. Riprap material shall consist of clean quarried rock, free of loose dirt and any pollutants,and shall be of sufficient size and weight to prevent movement by wave or current action.Tires, automobile bodies, scrap metal, paper products and other inappropriate. solid wastematerials, shall not be used for riprap.

b. Use of downed logs, snags or rock work to enhance habitat and to provide a more naturalappearance to the shoreline shall be incorporated into the design where appropriate.

c. Where on-site environmental conditions allow, vegetation shall be integrated into theriprap design to reduce erosion, provide cover, shade and habitat and improve the naturalappearance of the shoreline, consistent with the applicable vegetation managementprovisions of this master program.

Regulations -- Design

1. When permitted, the siting and design of revetments shall be performed using appropriateengineering principles, including guidelines of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

2. If an armored revetment is employed the following design criteria shall be met (see Figure8-1):

a. The size and quantity of the material shall be limited to only that necessary to withstandthe estimated energy intensity of the hydraulic system;

b. Filter cloth must be used to aid drainage and help prevent settling; and



c. The toe reinforcement or protection must be adequate to prevent a collapse of the systemfrom river scouring or wave action for the anticipated life of the project.

3. The area shall be restored as nearly as possible to preproject condition including replantingwith native species and maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is established.

Appendix G

Sequim Water PlanConservation Section

Sequim Water Plan Conservation Section G.1

Appendix GSequim Water Plan Conservation Section

The following is an excerpt from: 1993 Comprehensive Water Plan for City of Sequim by PolarisEngineering and Surveying, Inc. It is included here as an example of a water conservation plan.

ConservationInfrastructureInfrastructure such as production sources, distribution systems, and storage are sized on the basis ofpredicted demands for service. System enlargement increases construction costs and places additionaldemands on limited production resources. Suitable conservation measures can reduce the overall systemdemand with corresponding decreases in construction costs. Available production sources can then bemore efficiently utilized. Although conservation will not eliminate the need for new infrastructure, it canbe viewed as a means to extend the use of existing production resources and to possibly defer the need todevelop new production facilities.

The report section on storage (Table 31) indicated a current summer season deficiency of storage of1,170,600 gallons and a deficiency of 2,162,30(1 gallons in the year 2013. This amounts to a need toconstruct from $1,035,300 to $2,174,000 (page 56) in new tankage in the next 20 years. New productionfacilities and elements to the distribution system will also be needed to accommodate the increased waterdemand. Table 31 is based on the adoption of a fire sprinkler ordinance. Storage requirements for thesystem without a fire sprinkler ordinance are shown on Table 31, and are high still. Consideration ofconservation measures for both domestic and commercial uses is warranted.

Domestic Water UseThe present average water demand is 199 gallons per capita day (Table 20) or 661 gallons per connectionper day. This is 74 gallons per day higher than the average, per capita, suburban demand in JeffersonCounty (Table 14). During the summer peak, the domestic demand is 708 gallons per capita per day, 3.23times higher than the 219 gallon per capita per day average demand in Jefferson County. The waterdemand in the City of Sequim is high compared to national and regional standards during the low watermonths; and, higher than regional demands during the peak summer season. The data suggest that there isa good potential for the reduction of water demands through conservation measures. The followingsections discuss the main domestic uses of water; inside domestic uses and outside domestic uses.


G.2 Sequim Water Plan Conservation

Inside Domestic Water Uses: There is a direct relationship between water consumption and waste watergeneration. A breakdown of inside domestic uses showing nationwide averages is shown at Appendix D[of the Sequim Plan]: Typical Wastewater Flows From Selected Sources. Approximately 90%a of insidedomestic water used ends up in the waste water system, therefore, the average national inside domesticwater use is 51 gallons per capita per day. A number of the component uses shown in the Appendix canbe affected by conservation measures such as the installation of low flow toilets and sink and shower flowrestrictors. The following table shows what economies can be attained.

Table 33: Domestic Conservation Measure Effects

Activity Current UseGPCD

Anticipated UseGPCD

AnticipatedReduction GPCD

Toilet Flush 16.2 7.4 $.8Bathing 9.2 6.4 2.8Clothes Washing 10.0 10.0 0.0Dish Washing 3.2 2.6 0.6Garbage Grinding 1.2 0.8 0.4Miscellaneous 6.6 4.6 2.0TOTAL 45.6 31.8 13.8

Economies of the order of 30% in internal domestic use can be attained by the installation of waterconserving devices. An aggressive policy would need to be adopted that would mandate the installation ofwater conserving devices on all new and remodel construction as a requirement of permit approval. Thepolicy would also require the conversion of existing construction to low flow construction within aspecified time period such as 5 years. The City should investigate the costs associated with providing afinancial policy to assist in the conversion costs to persons of low income. The costs of providing anassistance program should be more than offset by the benefit of not needing to construct additionalinfrastructure.

High density residential classification is composed of high density residential buildings, residential carefacilities and mobile home parks. Table 15 shows only minor increases in water consumption in thesummer for high density residential users. This is primarily due to the limited percentage of landscapingper unit within this category. The percentage of overall use within this category is high (51% of the totaldemand) with an average monthly usage of 51,126 cubic feet per month. Because the majority of thewater used within this category is inside domestic in nature, this residential category should be targeted ashaving significant potential for conservation savings.



As stated above, mobile home parks are contained within the high density residential category. Thiscategory has the greatest increase in seasonal water use (40.9% summer increase per Table 15). Theincrease is chiefly due to the increased number of occupied units the summer season. No practicalconservation measure is anticipated that could address plumbing modifications within each trailer coachsince coach construction is not regulated by City building codes. Conservation measures within this groupwill be generally ineffective. This will tend to limit but not eliminate the effectiveness of conservationmeasures within the high density residential classification.

Outside Domestic Water Uses: The principal outside domestic water use is irrigation (lawns, trees,plants, etc.). Domestic consumption of irrigation water is greatest in the summer. Two recognized meansof controlling outside domestic water uses are: pressure control and water rates. Available water pressureaffects water usage in that the higher the pressure, the higher the potential for water wastage. Majorportions of the City have water main pressures in excess of 80 psi; and some areas have pressures above100 psi. Services in these areas are required to have pressure reducing valves in order to prevent damageto domestic water system components. In an ideal system, pressure would be lower and these valveswould not be necessary. One goal of this report is to redefine the distribution system so that there are asufficient number of pressure zones, each zone having a maximum line pressure of 80 psi. This goal willnot be attainable in all instances. Where individual pressure regulators must be used, the set pressure ofthese must be less than 80 psi. The preferable set pressure range is 40-60 psi.

The most potent means of controlling outdoor domestic water use is through an inverted rate type waterbilling system. The City currently charges a base rate with additional billing for water units used. Aninverted rate structure features an increase charge for billing unit as the water consumption increases. Thecurrent incremental billing unit is 5000 cubic feet. This will need to be reduced to a lesser unit such as500 cubic feet. The effect of increasing the cost per billing unit is to increase consumer awareness of thetotal amount of water used through an increasingly larger water bill. The desired outcome will be areduction in total water used.

Commercial UsesUses within this classification are offices, motels, and commercial. Public facilities will also beconsidered under this classification. The office category shows only a 10.1 % increase in use during thesummer. This is primarily due to the fixed occupant load and minimal landscaping requirements.

The motel and commercial categories experience respective increases of 36.7% and 24.3%. Theseclassifications are characterized by considerable interior domestic uses and minimal landscaping. Theseasonal increases are primarily due to increased occupant loading. only.


G.4 Sequim Water Plan Conservation

The public facilities category includes users such as the City of Sequim, the school district, and thefederal government (post office building). Public facilities comprise 5.1 % of the total yearly waterdemand. The demand does not appear to have large seasonal changes.

The nature of the commercial demands are principally interior domestic uses. As such, conservationmeasures should cause significant reductions in water demand. Installation of low flow toilets, flowrestrictors, and pressure regulators are active measures that should be undertaken. An inverted ratestructure may not have a major effect within this classification. The majority of the accounts within thisclassification, except the commercial category, are already at or near the baseline level. The commercialcategory is the exception. The majority of these accounts are at the current maximum level Theseaccounts would be most affected by an inverted rate structure. The method of establishing appropriate ratestructures for these accounts is complicated and will need to be addressed by the City prior to theadoption of a conservation ordinance.

System ModificationsSeveral system modifications have been identified as areas for water conservation. The first of these isreporting of unaccounted waters, water produced but not measured on individual water meters. The cityhas had water meters for all connections since 1978. Since that time, there has been a discrepancybetween the volume of water measured at the master water meter and the volume reported on theindividual water meters. The records have consistently shown more water sold than produced. This is dueto the inaccuracy of the present master meter.

Unaccounted water are those waters lost in the system due to leaks, evaporation, or other means. In anormal system, they total around 5%. The percentage of unaccounted waters is a test of the integrity of asystem. As the percentage gas up, the need for maintenance is indicated. High priority should be placed inproviding a competent master meter system in order to provide for a meaningful system indicator.

The current computer produced water billing system will require modifications in order to provide wateruse statistics. In addition to current billing information, the bill will need to show the billing amount forthe same period of the previous year as well as the relative use of water (decrease or increase).Consideration should also be given to a seasonal water rate, one for winter and a higher rate for summer.

The City should initiate a water audit program. Under this program, a city inspector would, with therequest of home owners, review the owner's water system and provide information on ways to increasethe efficiency of water utilization.

Mandatory water conservation measures for new and remodeled structure are specified in the WashingtonState Energy Code (Chapter 51-I 1 WAC). The City should consider an ordinance that requiresconformance of all structures to the state Energy Code. Uniform compliance to the code would greatlyreduce the required



volume of storage. A portion of the cost savings in tankage could be reserved to help citizens comply withthe ordinance. Areas of support could be no cost, City supplied flow reducing devices for sinks andshower heads, and partial rebates on low flow toilet cost.

As stated in previous sections, the average water main pressure with the City distribution system isaround 80 psi. Additional pressure zones must be added to bring the average zone pressure to around 45psi. This pressure reduction will result in water significant reductions flow based uses in all usercategories.

Conservation GoalsThe water demand per capita in the City of Sequim, is the highest in the north Olympic Peninsula - atleast double that of Port Townsend and the City of Port Angeles. The high demand places a severe burdenon production and storage facilities as well as natural resources. The five year conservation goal is afifteen percent reduction in demand.

Public ParticipationThe success of any conservation will depend on the degree of participation by the residents of the City. Inaddition to mandatory ordinance requirements, the City will need to convince its residents of thedesirability of complying with the ordinances. Possible means of accomplishing this goal are:

a) Mailers with water billsb) Promotional programsc) Public speaking engagementsd) Technical support for commercial users to install recycling water

systems for non-potable water uses.e) Encourage water conservation at businesses such as restaurants, motels,

etc.

Experience has shown that public participation is necessary for the success of a water conservationprogram. The public needs to know that a problem exists and that it is in their beneficial interest tobecome involved in solving the problem. Mailers with water bills reach directly into the consumer'shomes. The most effective mailer is to have historical water use statistics included as a part of the regularstatement along with a computation of savings. Customers will normally ignore flyers; but, will read theirstatements. Promotional programs to both raise awareness of water use and promote conversion to lowflow devices have been highly successful in other municipalities. Public speaking engagements aretargeted at schools and service clubs. These engagements can be combined with promotional programs.The advantage of a good public speaking program is that it conveys information to organized groups. Thiswill tent to optimize the effectiveness of the contact. These groups have been effective in the continueddissemination of the conservation information in other municipalities.

Appendix H

Resolution &Letters of Support

Resolutions and Letters of Support H.1

Appendix HResolutions and Letters of Support

Participants on the Local Government Caucus (including State, Federal, Tribal, LocalGovernment and PUD's) were contacted for resolutions of support for the DQ Plan. The shortturn-around time between the completion of the recommendations and the printing of the finalDQ Plan made this task difficult. Included in this appendix are the resolutions or letters ofsupport from the participating agencies and governments.

H.2 Resolutions and Letters of Support

RESOLUTION # 32-94

WHEREAS, the Jamestown S'Klallam Indian Tribe (hereinafter referred to as "theTribe") has been Federally acknowledged by the Secretary of the Interior of the United States ofAmerica on February 10, 1981; and

WHEREAS, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council (hereinafter referred to as "theCouncil") is the governing body of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe in accordance with itsConstitution adopted on November 19, 1983, and conducted by the Bureau of Indian Affairsfollowing Part 81 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and

WHEREAS, the health, safety, welfare, and education of the Indian people of theJamestown S'Klallam Tribe is the responsibility of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council; and

WHEREAS, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council previously adopted Resolution#2190 on May 4, -1990, supporting cooperative planning of water resources with the State ofWashington on a government-to-government basis, and Resolution #32-9I on June II, 1991pledging its commitment to the Dungeness-Quilcene Wafer Resources Pilot Project; and

- WHEREAS, a Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan has now beenwritten which outlines regional water management strategies for the future to provide far a netgain in productive fish habitat in the Dungeness watershed; and

WHEREAS, the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan does notquantify tribal rights to water resources, nor preclude the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe fromseeking adjudicative relief in the future regarding water resources for tribal use and the needs oftreaty-reserved resources;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Councilhereby states its support for the, Dungeness-Quilcene water Resources Management Plan andpledges its commitment to work towards plan implementation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Tribal Chairman or Vice-Chairwoman areauthorized to sign the plan and recommendations to the Washington Department of Ecology forthe protection and management of .the quality and quantity of the region's surface andgroundwater.


Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Resolution No. 32-94

CERTIFICATIQN

I, Ann J. Balch, Secretary of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council of the JamestownS'Klallam Tribe, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was formally adopted at ameeting held on the 2nd day of June 1994, at the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Office in Blyn,Washington, and where a quorum was present and approving the resolution by a vote of 5 FORand 0 AGAINST with 0 ABSTAINING.


June 28, 1994

Ms. Carol FleskesWater Resources ProgramDepartment of EcologyPO Box 47600Olympia, WA., 98504.-7600

Dear Ms. Fleskes:

The Fort Gamble S’Klallam Tribe supports the Dungeness/Quilcene Water ResourcesManagement Plan anti pledge our commitment to work toward its implementation. The Tribeendorses the intent of the plan to provide for a net gain in fish habitat and will assist the state andlocal cooperators to protect the quality and quantity of the region's waters.

Our support of the plan is based upon the understanding that this support does not quantify Tribalrights to water resources nor preclude the Tribe froze seeking adjudicative relief in the futureregarding water resources for tribal use and the needs of Treaty reserved resources.

The Tribe wishes to thank the many participants and staff who labored together to develop thisplan. We appreciate the cooperative spirit and government to government relations that allowedus to bring this plan forward.

(206) 297 2646 (206) 473.583 (206) 464-7281 (206) 297-7097Kingston Bremerton Seattle Fax


RESOLUTION NO. 94-A-112)

THE )PORT GAMBLE )S’KLALLAM )BUSINESS COMMITTEE )

OF )PORT GAMBLE )S'KLALLAM )COMMUNITY COUNCIL )__________________________________ )

I.WHEREAS. the Port Gamble S'Klallam Indian Community is organized under the Indian

Reorganization act of Tune 18,1934; andII.

WHEREAS, under its Constitution and Bylaws adopted August 5,1939, the CommunityCouncil was designated as the governing body of the Port Gamble S’KlaIlam Indian Community; and .

III.WHEREAS, by resolution dated April 22,1956, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Community

Council delegated the authority to conduct the business of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Indian Community to theport Gamble S'Klallam Business Committee; and

IV.WHEREAS, the Tribe has cooperated in the development of the Dungeness/Quilcene

Water Resources Management Plan, andV.

WHEREAS, the intent of the plan is to provide far a net gain in fish habitat and will assiststate and local governments to protect the quality and quantity of the region's waters; and

VI.WHEREAS, our support of the plan is based upon the understanding that this support

does not quantify Tribal rights to water resources nor preclude the Tribe from seeking adjudicative relief in thefuture regarding water resources for tribal use and the needs of Treaty resources; and

VII.WHEREAS,, the Tribe appreciates the cooperative spirit and government to government

relations that allowed us to bring this plan forward,VIII.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Port Gamble S'Klallam BusinessCommittee supports the Dungeness/Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan and pledges our commitment mwork towards its implementation.

CERTIFICATIONWE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date there was a regular meeting held of the Port

Gamble S'Klallam Business Committee on the Port Gamble S'Klallam Indian Reservation, at which time aquorum was present;

WE FURTHER CERTIFY, that the a numbered resolution, was at said meetingintroduced, evaluated, and was passed by a vote of 4 FOR 0 AGAINST, dated this .12TH day Of Juy,1994.


BEFORE THE BOARD OF CLALLAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE MATTER OF: }Support of the Dungeness- ) RESOLUTION NO. 102 . 1994Quilcene Water Resources )Planning Project )

THE BOARD OF CLALLAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS finds as follows:

1. On June 11, 1991, the Board of Commissioners approved Resolution No. 199, 1991 pledging supportand commitment to the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Project under the terms of the ChelanAgreement as required by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

2. For nearly three years the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Project has been underway. Thework involved local governments, state government, tribes, fisheries, recreational, agricultural, business andenvironmental interests.

3. The Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan has now been written which outlinesregional water management strategies for the future to provide for a net gain in productive fish habitat in theDungeness watershed.

1N CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARDOF CLALLAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:

I. Clallam County hereby stales its support for the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Planand pledges to work toward implementation of the plan.

II. Clallam County Commissioner Dave Cameron is authorized to sign the plan for recommendation to theWashington Department of Ecology far the protection and arrangement of the quality and quantity of the region'ssurface and groundwater.

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21 DAY OF June, 1994.


STATE OF WASHINGTONCounty of Jefferson

IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING }COMMISSIONER RICHARD E. WOJT TO VOTE } RESOLUTION NO. 74-94IN SUPPORT OF THE DRAFT PLAN OF THE }DUNGENESS/QUILCENE PILOT PROJECT }

WHEREAS, Jefferson County has participated in the Dungeness/Quilcene Pilot Project since theSpring of 1991, and

WHEREAS, a Draft Dungeness/Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan has now been writtenwhich outlines regional water management strategies for the future, and

WHEREAS, Jefferson County hereby states its support for the draft Plan and pledges to work towardPlan implementation, and

WHEREAS, County Commissioner Richard E. Wojt has been the County's representative and has beenactively involved in the project, now, therefore;

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners authorizes Richard E. Wojt to sign thedraft Plan and recommendations to the Washington Department of Ecology for the protection of the quality andquantity of the region's surface and groundwater.


RESOLUTION NO. 94- 73

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTTOWNSEND AUTHORIZING JULIE MCCULLOCH TO VOTE IN SUPPORTOF THE DRAFT PLAN OF THE DUNGENESS/QUILCENE PILOT PROJECT

WHEREAS, the City has participated in the Dungeness/Quilcene Pilot Project since Spring of1991, and

WHEREAS, the City has been actively involved in the project and has provided substantial inputinto the Plan, and

WHEREAS, the Plan makes recommendations related to many water concerns includinginstream flow, habitat, groundwater, water storage, date development, conservation, fishhatchery operation, and

WHEREAS, the Plan will provide an overview direction for the Coordinated Water System Planand the City's Water Comprehensive Plan, and

WHEREAS, the Plan provides far a progressive approach to dealing with water,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes its representative,Julie McCulloch to vote in support of the draft Plan or Plan in substantially the same form.

Passed this 16th day of May, 1994 John Clise, MayorAttest:

Dave Grove, Clerk-Treasurer

Approved as to Form:

Dennis McLerran, City Attorney

(see original for signatures)


United States Forest Olympic Quilcene Ranger DistrictDepartment of Service National P. O. Box 280Agriculture Forest Quilcene, WA 98376

Date: June 17, 1994

Reply to: 2510

Linda NewberryJamestown S'Klallam Tribe1033 Old Blyn HighwaySequim, WA 98382

The purpose of this letter is to express my support for the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Management Plan.The Dungeness Quilcene Water Resource Pilot Planning Project (the Chelan Agreement) brought together a widevariety of diverse interest to address the concerns of many different parties. With leadership from the JamestownS’Klallam Tribe, funding from the Washington State Department of Ecology, and over 10,000 hours of volunteertime, the Regional Planning Group has 'investigated the status of resources, defined the problem and issues,gathered information and supportive data, crafted solutions to the problems, negotiated agreements, and developedstrategies and recommendations...' The planning process has been an open process, and has resulted in a plan thataddresses the water needs of fish and wildlife, as well as human inhabitants.

The 'visionary' process used to develop the plan provides a model that may have application in many areas ofpublic land management. The process focused cooperation, community, interests, and ecosystems. The resultswere recommendations that will help provide guidance for management of National Forest lands within theDungeness-Quilcene area, as well as the adjacent non-Federal lands. t congratulate you and your staff, as well asthose who participated in the process, for the excellent work that has been done.


United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICEOlympic National Park600 East Park Avenue

Port An0geles, Washington 98362-6798IN REPLY REFER TO:

N16(OLYM-SM)

June 21, 1994

Ms. Carol FleskesProject ManagerWater Resources ProgramWashington State Department of EcologyP.O. Box 47600Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

Dear Ms. Fleskes:

I am pleased to recommend the Dungeness/Quilcene Regional Plan to the WashingtonDepartment of Ecology for the protection of the region's water resources. Olympic National Parkwill support the regional plan, as this project nears completion and all stakeholders in theplanning area prepare to move ahead. .

The plan outlines regional water management strategies for the future to benefit salmon andother anadromous fish of the watershed. All stakeholders share responsibility for resourcestewardship. Through this planning process, we have learned how to work together to resolvedifficult issues.

As a participant in the planning process through the Local Government caucus, we have formeda new awareness of the needs of the Peninsula communities we serve. Equally, we have hadmany opportunities to emphasize the value of our park to our neighbors, both socio-economicallyand environmentally. In short, we have become betted neighbors.

cc:Ms. Linda Newberry, Project Coordinator, Dungeness/Quilcene WRPPP,Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, 1033 Old Blyn Hwy., Sequim, WA 98382


RESOLUTION NO. R-94-4

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEQUIM,WASHINGTON

IN SUPPORT OF THE DUNGENESS/QUILCENE WATER RESOURCESPILOT

PLANNING PROJECT

WHEREAS. The City of Sequim has actively supported the Dungeness/QuilceneWater Resources Pilot Project since early 199 1, and

WHEREAS, The City has provided representation to nearly all the meetings of theRegional Planning Group since its inception, and

WHEREAS, The Pilot project has many benefits for the people of Sequa and theDungeness valley in evolving the water resources savings and protection of thearea, and

WHEREAS, The efforts and consistency of all the persons who participated indevelopment of the plan has resulted in benefits to all the citizens,

N0W THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Sequim states its supportof the plan and authorizes its representative David Johnston to sign the document,

PASSED AND ADOPTED THI 20 DAY OF JULY, 1994


Public Utility District #1Of Jefferson County

July 27, 1994

Linda Newberry, Project CoordinatorDungeness-Quilcene Pilot Planting Project% Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe1033 Old Blyn HighwaySequim, WA 98382

The Jefferson County PIJD wishes to commend the participants in the Dungeness-QuilceneWater Resource Pilot Planning Project (Chelan Agreement), for their perseverance in creatingthe framework for an ongoing water resource management process for the eastern OlympicPeninsula region outlined in the Water Resource Management Plan.

All the parties having diverse interests as to water use and allocation in the region were able toend enough common ground to create a set of recommendations and strategies designed to pratedand manage the water resource by voluntary, yet concerted actions.

The Regional Planning Group and other supporting committees have compiled a substantial setof technical data on the water resource. Their work has only emphasized the need for furtherground and surface water investigations, more exacting information in such areas as stream flowdata and hydraulic continuity as well as the development of a meaningful all encompassing waterconservation program

We hope that the legacy of the Dungeness-Quilcene Pilot Project will be that the citizens andgovernments at the local and regional level were able to successfully address their water resourceproblems, without imposition of state or judicial mandates.

24 Colwell Street / P.O. Box 929, Port Hadtock, Washington 98339 (206) 385-5800 FAX (206) 3853945

Board of CommissionersRichard M. Shipman. District IKenneth McMillen, District 2Robert A. Krutenat, District 3

James G. Parker. Maker

Glossary

Glossary I.1

Appendix IGlossary

acre-foot: A measurement of water. The volumeof water required to cover I acre of land to thedepth of 1 foot.

adjudication: A determination by the StateSuperior Court of the relative rights of thevarious claimants to use water from a watersource.

aggradation: The active build up of riverbornsediments in stream reaches of lower elevationriver gradient, creating broad, shallow, braidedriver channels.

alluvial: Originated through the transport byand deposition from running water. An exampleis a deposit of sand or mud.

allocation: Designation by Dept. of Ecology ofspecific amounts of water resource for specificbeneficial uses. (WAC 173-500-050)

ambient monitoring: Monitoring that is done todetermine existing environmental conditions,contaminant levels, rates, or species in theenvironment, against which future conditionscan be compared.

anadromous fish: Species, such as salmon andsteelhead, which hatch in fresh water, spend alarge part of their lives in the ocean, and returnto fresh water rivers and streams to reproduce.

appropriation: The process of legally acquiringthe rights to specific amounts of water forapplication to beneficial uses. (WAC 173-500-050)

aquatic ecosystem: Any body of water, such asa stream, lake or estuary, and all organisms andnonliving components within it functioning as anatural system.

aquifer: The underground layer of rock or soilin which groundwater resides capable ofyielding a significant amount of water to wellsor springs. Aquifers are replenished or rechargedby surface water percolating through soil.

Aquifer Protection Areas: A special districtallowing monthly fees on water withdrawals oron- site sewage disposal to finance theprotection, preservation, and rehabilitation ofground water. Aquifer Protection Areas arecreated when County legislative authoritiesresolve to submit a ballot proposition toregistered voters within the proposed protectionarea and voters approve the measure by a simplemajority.

bar scalping: Removal of gravel from rivergravel bars to prevent bed aggradation for floodcontrol and/or as a source of commercial gravel.

basalt: A fine-grained, dark-colored rock,formed by solidification from a molten orpartially molten state.

base flow: 1) Regulatory base flow: A level ofstreamflow established in accordance withprovisions of Ch. 90.54 RCW required inperennial streams to preserve wildlife, fish,scenic, aesthetic,


1.2 Glossary

and other environmental, or navigational values.(WAC 173-500-050) 2) Hydrologic base flow:That portion of stream flow sustained by groundwater seeping into stream rather than directlyfrom storm runoff. (see also hydrauliccontinuity)

bedload: A description of a process wherebystream flows, channel shape, and sediments arein constant interaction working to come to anequilibrium. Where additional levels of sedimentare put into a stream (i.e. through landslides,road construction) bedload can mean the amountof material being transported through thesystem. Sediments moving through the systemcausing changes in channel shape untilsediments are flushed out of the system ordeposited in stable areas are called bedload.

beneficial uses: Uses of water for domestic,stock watering, industrial, commercial,agricultural, irrigation, hydroelectric powerproduction, mining, fish and wildlifemaintenance and enhancement, recreational, andthermal power production purposes, andpreservation of environmental and aestheticvalues, and all other uses compatible with theenjoyment of the public waters of the state.(WAC 173-500-050)

best management practices (BMP): Methods,measures, or practices designed to prevent orreduce water pollution. Not limited to structuraland nonstructural controls, and procedures foroperations and maintenance. Usually, BMP's areapplied as a system of practices rather than asingle practice.

candidate species: Those plants and animalsthat are being considered by the USFWS forlisting as threatened or endangered under theEndangered Species Act.

casing: A metal or plastic pipe installed in awell to maintain the well opening, especially inloose or unconsolidated formations.

Chelan Agreement: An unsigned agreement in1990 between State government, the Tribes, andother water resource interests outlining aconsensus-based approach to water resourceissues. The agreement called for the creation of a

state-level Water Resources Forum and 2 pilotplanning projects to test the approach and wasfunded by the Washington State Legislature.

cistern: A large, permanent structure designedto catch, filter, and divert rain water into astorage area. Catchments include house, barn,and shed roofs, parking lots, paved surfaces orspecially: constructed impervious surfaces.Stored water is generally used for irrigation.

community water systems: Water distributionstructures. Group A water systems have 15 ormore service connections or serve an average of25 c more people per day for 60 or more days ayear Group B water systems have less than Iconnections and serve an average of less than 2people each year. (WAC 246-290)

consumptive use: Use of water where there isdiversion or diminishment of the water source.(WAC 173-500-050) (see also Chapter 2: WaterUse)

critical areas: A category of land for protectionunder the Growth Management Act of 1990including aquifer recharge, critical fish andwildlife habitat, seismic hazard, wetland, andflood hazard areas.

critical stocks: Stocks of fish experiencingproduction levels that are so low that permanentdamage to the stock is likely or has alreadyoccurred. (SASSI)

Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP):plan for public water systems within a criticalwater supply service area which identifies thepresent and future water system concerns andsets forth a means for meeting those concerns inthe most efficient manner possible. (Ch. 248-56-200)

cordillera: A group of mountain rangesincluding valleys, plains, rivers, lakes, etc.,having one general direction.

cumulative effects: Those effects on denvironment that result from the incrementaleffect of the action when added to the past,present, at reasonably foreseeable future actionsregardless of what agency or person undertakessuch other


Glossary I.3

actions. Cumulative effects can result fromindividually minor but collectively significantactions taking place over a period of time.

depressed stocks: A stock of fish whoseproduction levels are below expected levelsbased on available habitat and natural variationin survival rates, but above the level wherepermanent damage is likely. (SASSI)

deposition: The accumulation of riverbornsediments when energy of the stream decreasesbelow the level required for sediment transport.

discharge: The release of wastewater orcontaminants to the environment. Directdischarge of wastewater flows directly intosurface waters, while an indirect discharge ofwastewater enters a sewer system.

doctrine of prior appropriation: The right touse water acquired earlier in time is superior to asimilar right acquired later in time. "First intime, first in right."

drainage basin: The land area that gatherswater and contributes it to a body of surfacewater. Also called the watershed of the receivingwater body.

dredging: Any physical digging into the bottomof a water body. Dredging can be done withmechanical or hydraulic machines and eitherchanges the shape and form of the bottom orremoves sediment which has been depositedover the bottom.

Dungeness Water Users Association:Purveyors of agricultural water comprised of 9representatives from irrigation districts andcompanies. The association functions byconsensus agreement.

ecosystem: A community of living organismsinteracting with one another and with theirphysical environment. A system such as PugetSound can also be thought of as the sum ofmany interconnected ecosystems such as therivers, wetlands, and bays. Ecosystem is thus aconcept applied to communities of differentscale, signifying the interrelationships that mustbe considered.

effluent: The liquid waste of sewage andindustrial processing.

embayment: An indentation in a shorelineforming an open bay.

endangered species: Any species of plant oranimal defined through the Endangered SpeciesAct as being in danger of extinction throughoutall or a significant portion of its range, andpublished in the Federal Register.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): A 1973 Act ofCongress that mandated that endangered andthreatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants beprotected and restored.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Adocument that discusses the likely significantimpacts of a development, project, or a planningproposal, ways to lessen the impacts, andalternatives to the project or proposal. EIS's arerequired by the National and Washington StateEnvironmental Policy Acts.

Eocene: 1) Second geologic epoch of theTertiary Period, 37-54 million years ago. 2) Theseries of strata deposited during that epoch.

erosion: Wearing away of rock or soil by thegradual detachment of soil or rock fragments byflowing water, wind, freeze/thaw cycles,landslides, bedrock decomposition, and otherweathering.

escapement: The number of adult fish thatsurvive or "escape" fishing gear to migrateupstream to spawning grounds.

esker: 1) Eskers or kames are rudely stratifiedaccumulations of gravel, sand, and waterwornstones which occur in long ridges, mounds, andhummocks. 2) Serpentine ridges of gravel andsand, believed to mark channels in the decayingice sheet through which streams washed much ofthe finer drift, leaving the coarser gravelbetween the ice walls.

estuary: A coastal water body where oceanwater is diluted by out-flowing fresh water.


1.4 Glossary

evapotranspiration: That portion of theprecipitation returned to the air through directevaporation and by transpiration of plants.

exempt wells: Domestic water wells notrequiring a water right from Dept. of Ecology.Under current law use from one well must beless than 5000 gpd and used for domesticpurposes and/or the irrigation of no more thanone-half acre of lawn or non-commercial garden.

extinct stock: A stock of fish that is no longerpresent in its original range, or as a distinct stockelsewhere. Individuals of the same species, butdifferent stock, may be observed in very lownumbers in the extinct stock range, consistentwith straying from other stocks. (SASSI)

fish-bearing streams: Any stream containingany species of fish for any period of time.

fisheries enhancement: Fisheries enhancementis an action taken to create conditions in thebiological environment that optimizessurvivorship of the fish population in question.

flood plain: Land bordering a stream or riverand subject to flooding.

floodway: The channel of a stream, plus anyadjacent flood plain areas, that must be kept freeof encroachment, such as artificial fill, in orderthat the 100-year flood be carried withoutsubstantial increases in flood heights.

fluvial: Of or belonging to rivers.

geomorphic: Pertaining to the form or shape ofthose processes that affect the surface of theearth.

glacier: A mass of ice with definite laterallimits, with motion in a definite direction, andoriginating from the compaction of snow.

glaciation: Alteration of the earth's solid surfacethrough erosion and deposition by glacier ice.

gravel trap: Holes of almost any size dug alongside the river during a low flow period in areasof excessive bedload movement. In times ofhigh water the holes fill with sediment movingdown stream, thereby lessening bed aggradation.

grey water: Waste water from clothes washers,dish water, and bathing.

ground water: All waters that exist beneath theland surface or beneath the bed of any stream,lake, or reservoir, or other body of surface water,whatever may be the geologic formation orstructure in which such water stands or flows,percolates, or otherwise moves. (Ch. 173-100WAC) Ground water is created by rain whichsoaks into the ground and flows down until it iscollected and stored at a point where the groundis not permeable, forming natural undergroundwater supplies. Ground water then usually flowslaterally toward a river, lake, or the ocean, whereit discharges.

ground water advisory committee: Acommittee appointed by the Department ofEcology to assist in the development of a groundwater management program. (Ch. 173-100WAC)

ground water area: A geographic areadesignated pursuant to RCW 90.44.130(Regulation of Public Ground Waters) (Ch. 173-100 WAC)

ground water management area: A specificgeographic area or subarea designated pursuantto this chapter for which a ground watermanagement program is required. (Ch. 173- 100WAC)

ground water management program: Acomprehensive program designed to protectground water quality, to assure ground waterquantity, and to provide for efficientmanagement of water


Glossary I.5

resources while recognizing existing groundwater rights and meeting future needs consistentwith local and state objectives, policies, andauthorities within a designated ground watermanagement area or subarea and developedpursuant to Ch. 173-100 WAC.

ground water management zone: Any depth orstratigraphic zone separately designated by theDepartment of Ecology in cooperation with localgovernment for ground water managementpurposes within a ground water managementarea. Ground water management zones mayconsist of a specific geologic formation orformations or other reasonable boundsdetermined by Ecology consistent with Ch. 173-100 WAC.

habitat: The specific area or environment inwhich a particular type of plant or animal lives.An organism's habitat must provide all of thebasic requirements for life and should be free ofharmful contaminants. (see Appendix D:Habitat)

habitat assessment: Habitat assessment is aproblem analysis process to develop anddocument a scientifically based understanding ofthe processes and interactions occurring within awatershed which affect fish habitat.

habitat protection: Habitat protection means anaction taken or a decision made that protects thephysical and/or biological environment in awatershed.

habitat restoration: Habitat restoration meansan action taken to correct specific problemsidentified through watershed analysis or otherfull watershed inventory processes.

habitat enhancement: Habitat enhancement isan action taken to create conditions in thephysical environment that optimize survivorshipof the population in question.

healthy stock: A stock of fish experiencingproduction levels consistent with its availablehabitat and within the natural variations insurvival for the stock. (SASSI)

Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan(HCSMP): A 1980 agreement between WDFW

and PNPTC, which sets production levels,release programs, and harvest levels on fishproduced in Hood Canal.

hybridization: The interbreeding of fish fromtwo or more different stocks.

hydraulic conductivity: A measure of the rateat which water will move through soil or a rocklayer.

hydraulic continuity: The naturalinterconnections between ground water andsurface waters.

Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA): Under the

Hydraulic Code Rules, approval is required fromWDFW for certain activities in state waters thatsupport fish life. A project approval is requiredfor such activities affecting state waters such ascertain forest practices; culvert construction,bridge, pier, and piling construction; bulkheads;boat launches; dredging; and gravel traps.

hydrogeology: The study of theinterrelationships of geologic materials andprocesses with water, especially ground water.

hydrologic base flow: See baseflow.

hydrologic cycle: The continual cycling ofwater between the land, the sea, and theatmosphere


1.6 Glossary

through evaporation, condensation,precipitation, absorption into the soil, and streamrunoff.

hypsithermal period: Postglacial warm intervalextending from about 7000 to 600 B.C.responsible for the last 6-foot rise of world-widesea level.

impoundment: Generally, an artificialcollection or storage of water, as a reservoir, pit,dugout, or sump.

infiltration: The downward entry of water intothe soil.

infiltration gallery: A horizontal well orsubsurface drain that intercepts underflow inpermeable materials or infiltration of surfacewater. Infiltration galleries are used whensurface water is not suitable for direct pumpingbecause of silt load, shoreline slope, presence ofinert contaminants, or rapid and unpredictablechanges in water level, for example.

infrastructure: Streets, utilities, parks, andother elements that support residentialdevelopment and other human activities.

in-fine reservoir: Water storage requiring ablockage or dam in the main channel of a river,stream, or ditch.

interbed: A typically thin bed of rock materialalternating with contrasting thicker beds of rock.

irrigation: The application of water to soil forcrop production or for turf, shrubbery, orwildlife food and habitat. Provides waterrequirements of plants not satisfied by rainfall.

irrigation district: A cooperative, self-governing public corporation set up as asubdivision of the state, with definitegeographic boundaries, organized to obtainand distribute water for irrigation of lands withinthe district; created under authority of the statelegislature with the consent of a designatedfraction of the landowners or citizens and havingtaxing power.

irrigation return flow: The part of appliedwater that is not consumed byevapotranspiration and that migrates to anaquifer or surface water body.

isohyetal: Marking the amounts of rainfall.Instream Flow: A base flow adopted intoWashington State regulations used to conditionwater rights. A water right for instream.resources such as fish, wildlife, recreation,esthetics, navigation, stock watering, and waterquality with a priority date set when the instreamflow rule was adopted.

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology(IFIM): A method of quantitatively relatingstream flow to fish or wildlife habitat area. TheIFIM combines curves describing the suitabilityof certain velocities and water depths forselected


Glossary I.7

species and life stages, with measurements ofcurrent, depth, and wetted channel width in thearea of study, to produce a table relating usablehabitat area to stream flow.

intermittent stream: Any non-permanentflowing drainage feature having a definablechannel and evidence of annual scour ordeposition. This includes what are sometimesreferred to as ephemeral streams if they meetboth criteria.

junior right: A water right that is more recent inrelation to other water rights, and in times oflimited water is legally able to be satisfied onlyafter other senior rights have been fulfilled.

key watershed: As defined by USFS and BLMfish biologists, a watershed containing: 1)habitat for potentially threatened stocks ofanadromous salmonids or other fish, or 2)greater than 6 square miles with high-qualitywater and fish habitat.

lithology: 1) The study and description ofrocks. 2) '17he physical character of a rock asdetermined by observations made with the nakedeye or with the aid of a low-power magnifier.

low flow: Stream flow level limitationsappearing as provisions on permits andcertificates issued by the Department of Ecologyor its predecessors. (WAC 173-500-050)

mixed stock: A fish stock whose individualsoriginated from commingled native and non-native parents, and/or by mating between nativeand nonnative fish (hybridization); or apreviously native stock that has undergonesubstantial genetic alteration.

maximum habitat flow: See optimum instreamflow.

native stock: An indigenous stock of fish thathas not been substantially impacted by geneticinteractions with non-native stocks or by otherfactors, and is still present in all or part of itsoriginal range. In limited cases, a native stockmay also exist outside of its original habitat (i.e.captive broodstock programs).

nonconsumptive use: A type of water usewhere either there is no diversion from a sourcebody, or where there is no diminishment of thewater source. (WAC 173-500-050) (see Chapter2: Water Use)

nonpoint source pollution: Pollution that enterswater from dispersed and uncontrolled sources,such as surface runoff, rather than through pipes.Nonpoint sources, such as forest practices,agricultural practices, on-site sewage disposal,and recreational boats, may contributepathogens, suspended solids, and toxicants.

off-channel habitat: Channels or ponds in afloodplain, at least seasonally connected to theprimary channel, that are in addition to andfrequently parallel the primary flowing channel.These generally occur in unconstrained reaches.

one-half acre rule: No water right permit isrequired for the withdrawal of up to 5000gallons per day from a well when the water isbeing used for one of several uses including theirrigation of no more than 1/2 acre of lawn ornoncommercial garden. (see Groundwatersection C. 11)

outcrop: The exposure of bedrock or strataprojecting through the overlying cover ofweathering rocks and soil.

outwash: Rock material transported by a glacierand deposited by melt-water streams beyondactive glacier ice.

optimum instream flow: The amount of streamflow determined by IFIM to be needed toprovide maximum usable fish habitat. What isoptimum instrearn flow in any given month alsodepends upon the species in question.Also called maximum habitat flow. If Toe WidthMethod is used instead of IFIM, optimuminstrearn flow represents spawning habitat only.

overwintering ponds: Off-channel ponds linkedto the river or slow-moving side channels, eithernaturally occurring or artificially created.Overwintering ponds offer protection fromfloods for any juvenile salmonids that winterover before migrating out to sea, spawning, andfor primary rearing areas.


1.8 Glossary

palustrine: A geologic term pertaining tomaterial deposited in a wetland environment.

peak flow: The highest amount of stream orriver flow occurring in a year or from a singlestorm event.

perennial stream: A strewn that typically hasrunning water on a year-round basis.

perfected water right: A water right to whichthe owner has applied for and obtained a permit,has complied with the conditions of the permit,and has obtained a water right certificate.

production type: The method of spawning andrearing that produced the fish that constitute astock.

Public Benefit Rating System: A point systemto determine the current use value of landsclassified as open space lands in the JeffersonCounty Open Space Tax Program. Thesystem considers prioritization of resources,access, transfer of development rights, andfulfillment of County policy goals.

Public Trust Doctrine: A judicial doctrineunder which the state holds its navigable watersand underlying beds in trust for the public and isrequired or authorized to protect the publicinterest in such waters. All water rights issuedby the state are subject to the overriding interestof the public and the exercise of the public trustby state administrative agencies.

reach: The length of stream channel from ariffle into a pool, usually 1 to 1 1/2 times thewidth of the channel. (See figure 1.7)

recharge: Surface water which enters into aground-water system. This can be naturalrecharge, such as from precipitation, or artificialrecharge, such as from irrigation or dry wells.

recurved spit: A spit with the end stronglycurved inward.

redd: The spawning area or nest of salmonids.The nest is dug into stream gravel to allow waterto

provide oxygen to the developing embryos andflush out biological wastes.

Referendum 38: (Ch. 43.99E RCW and Ch.173- 170 WAC) Approved by voters in 1980,this measure provides financial assistance topublic bodies operating agricultural water supplyfacilities to assist in improving their efficiencyof water use beyond current levels. Beforeimplementation of a conservation project thepublic body must develop a ComprehensiveWater Conservation Plan, which evaluates thecurrent system for alternative managerial orstructural water conservation improvements.Planning and implementation grants and loansare administered through the Dept. of Ecology.

regulatory base flow: See base flow.

relinquishment: water rights reverting to theState for reappropriation because of failure tobeneficially use all or part of the right for a five-year period. (see RCW 90.14.160)

resting / holding pools: Slow-water off-channelpools which adult salmonids use to rest whilemigrating upstream to spawn. Resting poolsoccur naturally or are artificially created as atemporary measure during habitat restoration.

return flows: That part of diverted water whichreturns to the source through seepage, spills,deep percolation, or discharge.

riffle: A segment of the river channel which hasmoderate to steep gradient, shallow depth, andhas higher flows.

riparian area: The terrestrial areas immediatelyadjacent to a stream or river where thevegetation complex and microclimate conditionsare products of the presence and influence ofwater. Riparian areas can vary in width from aslittle as 20 feet to more than 300 feet from thewater.

riparian doctrine: The system of law dominantin Great Britain and the eastern United States, inwhich owners of lands along the banks of astream or water body have the right toreasonable use of the waters and correlative rightprotecting against unreasonable use by othersthat substantially


Glossary I.9

diminishes the quantity or quality of water. Theright is appurtenant to the land and does notdepend on prior use.

river mile (RM): a measurement of rivercorridor length beginning at the mouth of theriver.

run: Fish stocks grouped together on the basisof similar migration times.

runoff. The portion of precipitation or irrigationwater that moves across land as surface flow andenters streams, ditches, drains, or other surfacereceiving waters. Runoff occurs when theprecipitation rate exceeds the infiltration rate.

salinity: Concentration of dissolved salts inwater or soil water.

salmonid: A fish belonging to the familySalmonidae, including salmon, trout, char, andallied freshwater and anadromous fishes.

seamount: A submarine mountain rising morethan 500 fathoms (915 meters) above the oceanfloor. Generally, a volcanic cone.

seawater / saltwater intrusion: The migrationof salt water into fresh water aquifers as a resultof pumping water from aquifers that are inhydraulic continuity with the sea.

sediment: Materials in streams or other bodiesof water including boulders, cobbles, gravel,sand, silt, and clay. Sediment may suspended inwater, transported by water, or settling to thebottom of the water.

senior right: A water right that is older inrelation to other water rights, and is legally ableto be satisfied before others in times of limitedwater.

siltation: The process by which a river, lake, orother water body becomes clogged withsediment. Silt can clog gravel beds and preventsuccessful salmonid spawning.

smolt: A seaward migrating juvenile salmonid,silvery in color, that has become thinner in bodyform and is physiologically prepared for thetransition from fresh to saltwater.

spawning population: Synonymous with theterm "stock."

species: Includes any subspecies of fish, wildlifeor plants, and any distinct population segmentswhich interbreeds when mature. Sec. 3 (15)Endangered Species Act (as ammended by the100th Congress).

stock: The fish spawning in a particular lake orstream(s) at a particular season, which fish to asubstantial degree do not interbreed with anygroup spawning in a different place, or in thesame place at a different season.


1.10 Glossary

stock origin: The genetic history of a stock.

stock status: The current condition of a stock,which may be based on escapement, run-size,survival, or fitness level.

storm water: Water that is generated by rainfalland is often routed into drain systems orirrigation ditches to prevent flooding.

streambed: That part of the channel usually notoccupied by perennial terrestrial plants, butincluding gravel bars, and lying between thebase or toe of the banks.

subduct: In plate tectonics, the depressing andpassing of one plate margin of the earth underanother plate.

subduction: The process of descent of onetechtonic unit under another.

subduction zone: An elongated region alongwhich a crustal block descends relative toanother crustal block. Deep oceanic trenchesoccur along subduction zones.

techtonic: Pertaining to, or designating the rockstructure and external forms resulting from thedeformation of the earth's crust. As applied toearthquakes, it is used to describe shocks not dueto volcanic action or to collapse of caverns orlandslides.

thalweg: The deepest part or middle of the riveror stream channel. The thalweg remains constantthrough both low and high flows, until it ischanged by gravel movement in high flows.

threatened species: Those plant or animalspecies likely to become endangered speciesthroughout all or a significant portion of theirrange within the foreseeable future. A plant oranimal identified and defined in accordance withthe 1973 Endangered Species Act and publishedin the Federal Register.

Timber/Fish[Wildlife Agreement: A 1987cooperative agreement between Tribal, Forestry,and State interests. The agreement establishes anatural resource management process for forest

practices on state and private lands inWashington State.

transfer: A movement of water or water rightsthat involves a change in point of diversion, achange in type of use, or a change in location ofuse.

Trust Water Right program (TWR): A Dept.of Ecology program created by the WashingtonState legislature in 1991 to facilitate thevoluntary transfer of water and water rights,including conserved water, to provide water forpresently unmet and emerging needs. Possiblemethods for transfer include dry year leaseoptions, temporary or permanent changes in theplace or type of use of a water right (i.e. fromoff-stream uses to instrearn flows), waterbanking managed by the state, the transfer ofwater conserved by a water conservation projector by gift.

toe width method: A method to predictspawning and rearing flows preferred by Salmonand Steelhead. The width of the stream betweenbanks is measured and is entered into statisticalmodels developed by the USGS.

topographic: refers to physical relief features orsurface configuration of land.

turbidity: A measurement of the amount ofmaterial suspended in the water. Increasing the


Glossary I.11

turbidity of the water decreases the amount oflight that penetrates the water column. Highlevels of turbidity are harmful to aquatic life andfail federal water quality standards.

usual and accustomed area: A provision of thetreaties between Indian Tribes and IsaacStevens, Washington Territorial Governor,which allowed the Tribes the continuing right totake "fish at usual and accustomed" areas "incommon with all citizens of the United States."These areas were further delineated based onhistorical information for each Tribe in 1974after State Supreme Court Judge Boldtreaffirmed and clarified the treaty rights.

unknown stock: This description is applied tostocks where there is insufficient information toidentify stock origin or stock status withconfidence. (SASSI)

water table: The upper surface of ground water,or the level below which the soil is saturatedwith water.

Water Resources Forum (WRF): Designed bythe 1990 Chelan Agreement and funded by theWashington State Legislature, the WaterResources Forum is a planning grouprepresenting the State- wide interests ofagriculture, business, the environment,fisheries, local government, recreational users,state government, and the tribes. The Forum'stask was to address the issues groundwaterrecharge, instrearn flow, and hydrauliccontinuity and write policy applicable State-wide.

wetlands: Habitats where the influence ofsurface or ground water has resulted indevelopment of plant or animal communitiesadapted to aquatic or intermittent wet conditions.Wetlands generally require the following threeconditions: hydric plants, hydric soils, andhydrology. Wetlands generally include, but arenot limited to, swamps, marshes, bogs, andsimilar areas.

Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA): Inthe early 1979s Washington State was dividedby Dept. of Fisheries into 62 watershed areaswhich have since been used by state agencies to

organize water-related information and defineplanning projects. Eastern Jefferson County(WRIA 17), and Eastern Clallam County (WRIA18) comprise the DQ Project area.

water right: The legal right to use a specificquantity of water on a specific time schedule, ata specific place and for a specific purpose. In1917 legislation was passed providing that allsurface water (and in 1945 all ground water)within the State belonged to the State, and anyright to use the water could be obtained by filingan application and being granted a permit for thedevelopment of the water system.

water right application: An application by aprospective water user to the Department ofEcology for a water right permit. It is required todivert any amount of surface water or withdrawground water in amounts greater than 5000gallons per day or to irrigate more than a halfacre of land. The application requirespublication of legal notice to announceapplication, a 30-day public protest period, and afield examination by Ecology recommendingapproval or denial of the permit.

water right certificate: The final stage inestablishment of a water right under state lawafter filing an application, receiving adevelopment permit, and putting the water to abeneficial use. The certificate states thequantitative and locational parameters of thewater right. Certificates are also issued at theconclusion of an adjudication. Once a certificateis issued or perfected, no further expansion isallowed under that water right.

water right claim: A water right claim is not awater right. It is a registration with the State bythe property owner regarding water use notauthorized by a permit or certificate. A claimmay represent a valid water right if it describes awater use existing prior to water codes: 1917 forsurface water and 1945 for ground water.Claims registered are evaluated for sufficientevidence to satisfy the Dept. of Ecology that avalid water right would be confirmed if theclaim were adjudicated.


1.12 Glossary

water right permit: An approval of anapplication by the Dept. of Ecology, allowingconstruction of a water system and use of water.

watershed: The geographic region within whichwater drains into a particular river, stream, orbody of water. A watershed includes hills,lowlands, and the body of water into which theland drains. Watershed boundaries are definedby the ridges of separating watersheds.

wetland: Lands transitional between terrestrialand aquatic systems where the water table isusually at or near the surface and the landscovered either seasonally or permanently byshallow water.

Wild and Scenic River System: Those rivers orsection of rivers designated as such byCongressional action under the Wild and ScenicRiver Act, or those sections of rivers designatedas wild, scenic, or recreational by an act of thelegislature of the state or states through whichthey flow. The Act establishes procedures forstudying and protecting outstanding rivers.

wild stock / fish: A stock that is sustained bynatural spawning and rearing in the naturalhabitat, regardless of parentage (includesnatives).

wildlife: Species of the animal kingdom whosemembers exist in the wild state. This includesmammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish andinvertebrates. (see RCW 77.12.020 / RCW77.16.120 for classifications on predatory andgame birds and protected wildlife.)

wildlife / wildlife resources: Birds, fishes,mammals, and all other classes of wild animalsand all types of aquatic and land vegetarian uponwhich wildlife depend. (Fish and WildlifeCoordination Act)

wildlife habitat: Waters of the State used byfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife of any lifehistory, stage, or activity. (see WAC 173-205-025)

Acknowledgements

Many people have participated and given greatly of their time and expertise over the past twoyears ofp1anning. With over 12, 000 documented in-kind hours donated to the project (and manymore unclaimed), this Plan represents an enormous effort and contribution on the part of manyindividuals who think that its worth planning and working hardfor their watersheds and water

resources!

All of the RPG members and their tolerant families deserve aCONGRATULATIONS!

The following deserve special thanks for their help:Clallam County Dept. of Community Development, especially Bill White, Ann Soule, LeanneJenkins, and Steve Gray; Tim McNulty; Joe Holtnip; Anne Murphy; -Claire Roprs; Jefferson

County IDMS (especially Dave Young); Jeffers6n County, Health Department, Port Townsendand Jefferson County libraries; Jamest6wn S'K;allam, i fibal,staff (for, tolerating DQ staff"hogging" the copy machine) including Mike Reed's help and expertise-, Roger Hoffinan,Olympic National Park; US Forest Service (both Quilcene and Olympia offices); Joe Ffiss,USFWS; Ecology staff (especially Doug Rushton, Gale Blomstrom and Chuck Lehotsky);

Katherine Baril (WSU) and Bob Ness for great facilitation andadvice;, Roger Schmidt for helpwith irrigation and conservation strategies; for help with writing and editing on the Plan, RPG

members Steve Keller, Pat Wennekens, BJ Enbysk, Dana Roberts, and Carol Volk (and for foodand good humor); and for more time and expertise than was ever expected, Welden and Virginia

Clark for writing Chapter 2.

Love this river, stay by it, learn from it. Yes, he wanted to learn from it,Yes, he wanted to listen to it. It seemed to him that whoever understoodthis river and its secrets, would understand much more, many secrets,

all secrets.

! Hermann Hesse

this plan was prepared by the jamestown s'klallam tribe ... · water resources management plan...

Documents